INITY  CHURCH 


PAMPHLETS. 


OLLECTED  FOR  THE  CORPORATIOS. 
18  57. 


\ 

\ 

I 

I 

I 

V 


I 

1 


CONTENTS. 


1.  Charter. 

2.  Repo-rt  of  Commtssiotiers  of  Land  Office  of 

3.  Memorial  of  Tiinity  Church  to  t]i£  Leylaluture  in  LSoiJ. 

4.  RemarTis  on  Trinity  Church  Bill.  Troup. 

5.  ClarTc's  Minority  Report. 

6.  Examination  of  ClarFs  Minority  Report. 
T.  Report  of  Committee  of  Assemllij,  1S47. 

8.  Remonstrance  of  Tnnity  Church,  1847. 

9.  Communication  of  Vestry,  Feh.  20,  1856,  to  Samtc. 

10.  Facts  versus  Fancy. 

11.  Reports  of  Senate  Committee. 

12.  Argument  of  Counsel. ' 

13.  Remonstrance  and  Protest. 
1-4.  Debates. 

15.  To  the  Senators,  etc. 

16.  Letter  of  Mr.  Barnard. 

17.  A  Ward  for  Trinity  Church. 

18.  A  Review,  etc. 

19.  The  Title,  Parish  Rights  and  Projxrty. 


I 


CONTENTS. 


PACE. 

Charter  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of  New-York,  granted  in  1697,   5  to  16 

Act  of  the  Colonial  Legislature  of  Jane  27,  1701,  granting  sundry  privileges  and 

powers  to  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,   16  to  21 

Section  36  of  the  State  Constitution  of  1777,   21 

Act  of  17th  April  1784,  making  alterations  in  the  charter  of  the  corporation  of 

Trinity  Church,  and  repealing  certain  acts,   22  to  26 

Act  of  10th  March  178S,  altering  the  name  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church, .  27 
Petition  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  1813,  upon  which  was  founded 

the  act  of  1814,   28  to  30 

Act  of  25th  January,  1814,  to  alter  the  name  of  the  corponnion  of  Trinity  Church 

and  for  other  purposes,   31  to  33 

Objections  proposed  to  the  last  mentioned  act,  in  the  Council  of  Revision  by 

Chancellor  Lansing,  34  to  35 

Vote  of  the  Council  of  Revision  upon  the  objections,   35 

Proceedings  in  the  Senate  on  the  bill,  35  to  36 

Proceedings  in  the  Assembly  on  the  same,   36  to  37 

Opinion  of  Attorney-General  (A.  Van  Vechten,)  upon  the  effect  of  the  bill,   37 

Extracts  from  act  of  6th  April,  1784,  respecting  religious  incorporations,   38 

"       "    acts  of  1801  and  1813,  on  same  subject,   39  to  40 

Amendatory  act  of  March  5th,  1819,  on  the  same  subject,   41 

Queen  Anne's  grant  to  Trinity  Church,  November  20lh,  1705,   41  to  44 

Confirmation  thereof,  14th  April,  1714,   44 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


https://archive.org/details/trinitychurchpamOOtrin 


CHARTER 

OF  THE 

CORPORATION  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH* 


GULIELMUS,'  Tertius,  Dei  Gratia  AngUa,  Scotia, 
Franci(B  et  Hibernicn,  Rex  fidei  Defensor,  8fc.  To  all 
to  whom  these  Presents  shall  come,  sendeth 
greeting : 

Whereas,  by  an  act  of  assembly  made  in  the  fifth  year  of  p^^^^^^j^  , 
our  Reigne,  entitled  "  An  act  for  settling  a  Ministry  and  Rais-  reciting  act 
ing  a  maintainance  for  them  in  the  city  of  New  Yorke,  countys  "emb^rfi693, 
of  Richmond,  Westchester  and  Queens  county;"  among:  p'SI"!'"? 

1        ■  •       1  •    •  11         1  1    n  1      ^  Protestant 

other  things  therein  conteined  it  is  enacted  that  there  shall  be  minister  in 
called,  inducted  and  established,  a  good  sufficient  Protestant 
Minister  to  officiate  and  have  the  care  of  souls  within  our 
said  city  of  New  Yorke,  and  for  his  better  encouragement  to 
attend  the  said  service,  it  is  thereby  further  enacted  that  there 
shall  be  annually,  and  once  in  every  year,  assessed,  levyed, 
collected  and  paid  for  the  yearly  maintainance  of  the  said 
minister  within  our  city  and  county  of  New  Yorke  the  sume 
one  hundred  Pounds  currt.  money  of  our  province  of  New 
Yorke,  to  be  assessed,  levyed,  collected  and  paid  in  such  man- 
ner and  proportion  as  is  further  directed  in  the  Body  of  the 
aforesaid  act,  relation  being  thereunto  had  may  more  fully 
and  at  large  appear.  And  Whereas,  at  the  same  time  when  ^ 
the  aforesaid  act  was  made,  there  was  not  erected  any  public  then  no  pub- 
church  or  building  within  our  said  city  whereunto  such  a  good  [hee'i^.'^'' 
sufficient  Protestant  minister  might  have  been  inducted  for 
his  orderly  officiating  of  his  duty  in  the  public  worship  and 
service  of  God  according  to  the  Rites  and  ceremonys  of  our 
Protestant  Church  of  England  Established  by  our  laws  : 
And  Whereas,  our  trusty  and  well  beloved  Benjamin  Ffletcher, 
our  captain-Generall  and  Governour-in-Chiefe  of  our  said 
province  of  New  Yorke  and  Territoryes  depending  thereon 

•  This  copy  is  printed  in  conformity,  as  nearly  as  possible,  with  the  record 
in  the  Secretary's  office.  It  differs  veiy  little,  except  in  the  spellinsf,  from 
that  appended  to  Judge  Troup"s  pamphlet,  which  is  supposed  to  have  been 
copied  from  the  original  charter,  conformed  to  the  modern  spelling.  Where 
there  is  any  difference  in  words  between  the  two,  those  in  Judge  Troup'gcopy, 
and  not  in  the  Secretary's  record,  are  inserted  between  brackets. 


6 


CHARTER  OF  1697. 


Contribu- 
tions for  a 
church. 


Petition  of 
certain  per- 
sons to  tlie 
Governor, 


for  grant 

and  confirm- 
ation of 
church  and 
certain 
grouiid>  ; 


and  that 

church  and 
ground  may 
be  dedicated 
10  public 
worsliip;  i 


in  America,  hath  by  liberall  and  bountifiill  donations  as  well 
as  by  his  pious  example  influenced  many  of  our  loving  sub- 
jects who  have  likewise  religiously  contributed  according  to 
their  respective  abilityes  several  sumes  of  money  which  by 
our  said  captaine-Generalls  direction  have  been  employed  and 
laid  out  for  the  erecting  and  building  a  church  and  laying  the 
foundation  of  a  steeple  within  our  said  city  that  the  public 
worship  and  service  of  god  in  manner  aforesaid  might  be 
more  orderly  and  reverendly  performed  by  the  aforesaid 
minister.  And  Whereas,  our  loving  subjects  Coll  Caleb 
Heathcote  one  of  our  Council  of  our  said  province  Major 
William  Merret  Mayor  of  our  said  city  of  New  Yorke,  John 
Tuder,  James  Emott,  William  Morris,  Robert  Lurting, 
Thomas  Clarke,  Ebenezer  Wilson,  Samuel  Burt,  James 
Evertts,  Nathaniel  Martson,  Michael  Howden,  Thomas  Wen- 
ham,  John  Crooke,  and  William  Sharpas,  citizens  and  inhabi- 
tants of  our  said  city  of  New  Yorke,  and  the  present  mana- 
gers of  the  affairs  of  our  said  Church  of  England  within  our 
said  city  ot  New  Yorke,  have  by  their  petition,  presented 
unto  our  said  trusty  and  well  beloved  Benjamin  Ffletcher, 
our  said  Captain-Generall  and  Governour  in  chiefe  of  our 
said  province  of  New  Yorke  and  terreitoryes  depending 
thereon  in  America  prayed  our  royall  grant  and  confirmation 
of  a  certaine  church  and  steeple  that  hath  been  lately  built 
within  our  said  city  of  New  Yorke,  together  with  a  certaine 
piece  or  parcel!  of  ground  thereunto  adjoyning  scituate  lye- 
ing  and  beeing  in  or  neere  to  a  streete  without  the  north  gate 
of  our  said  city  commonly  called  and  knowne  by  the  name 
of  the  Broadway,  conteining  in  breadth  on  the  East  end  as  the 
said  streete  of  the  Broadway  rangeth  Northward  three  hun- 
dred and  tenn  foot  until  you  come  unto  the  land  lately  in  the 
tenure  and  occupation  of  Thomas  Lloyd  Deed  :  and  from 
thence  towards  the  west  in  length  by  the  said  land  until  you 
come  unto  Hudson's  River  and  thence  southward  along  Hud- 
son's river  three  hundred  and  ninety-five  foot  all  of  English 
measure,  and  from  thence  by  the  line  of  our  garden  Eastward 
unto  the  place  of  the  said  street  in  the  Broadway  where  first 
begunn,  and  that  the  said  church  together  with  the  cemetry 
or  church  yard  thereunto  adjoyning  may  forever  hereafter  be 
dedicated  and  consecrated  to  the  public  worship  and  service 
of  God  according  to  the  Rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  protes- 
tant  church  of  England  as  now  established  by  our  laws  ; 
which  said  church  and  steeple,  scituate,  lying,  and  being 
within  our  said  city  as  aforesaid,  having  been  built  and  erect- 
ed at  the  charge  of  our  said  trusty  and  well  beloved  Benja- 
min Ffletcher,  our  said  Captaine-Generall  and  Governour  as 
aforesaid  and  of  severall  other  of  our  loving  subjects,  inhabi- 
tants within  our  said  city  and  province.  And  Whereas,  our 
said  loving  subjects  in  their  s?id  humble  petition  have  like- 


CHARTER  OF  1697. 


7 


wise  prayed  that  We  would  be  graciously  pleased  for  the 
better  accomraodation  and  conveniency  of  the  inhabitants  of 
our  said  city  of  New  Yorke,  that  the  same  church  might  be  church  may 
made  Parochiall  and  incorporate  into  one  body  Politicq  in  ochT^lnS  be 
fact  and  name  by  the  name  of  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  in  incorporated 

r     1       Tt  ir^T^ii  vriih  certain 

communion  of  the  Protestant  church  of  i^ngland  as  now  powers  and 
established  by  our  laws  ;  and  that  as  such,  they  and  their 
successors  may  have,  hold,  use,  occupy  and  enjoy  all  the 
rights,  benefits,  advantages,  privileges,  immunityes,  Mortua- 
rys  and  appurtenances  as  are  usually  held  and  enjoyed  by  all 
or  any  of  our  Parochiall  Churches  of  our  Church  of  England 
within  our  Realme  of  England,  and  also  that  We  would  be 
further  graciously  pleased  to  appropriate  unto  our  said  church  ^"^^^^ 
the  aforesaid  yearly  maintainance  of  one  hundred  pounds  money  and 
enacted  by  the  aforesaid  act,  and  make  our  further  Royall  madel"* 
grant  of  a  certaine  quantity  of  our  land  neere  adjoyning  to 
the  said  church  unto  the  said  petitioners  in  trust  for  the  use  of 
our  said  church  and  corporation. 

Now,  know  ye  that  in  consideracon  of  the  great  charge  inducements 
that  our  said  trusty  and  well  beloved  subject,  Benjamin 
Ffletcher,  our  Captain-Generall,  as  aforesaid,  and  the  rest  of 
our  aforesaid  loving  subjects,  inhabitants  within  our  said  city 
&c.,  have  been  at  in  the  erecting  of  the  said  Church,  and  laying 
the  fou'idation  of  a  steeple,  and  the  further  great  charge  that 
must  unavoidably  acrew  for  the  finishing  the  said  church  and 
steeple,  and  the  providing  it  with  suitable  ornaments,  as  also 
for  the  erecting  and  providing  a  house  neere  the  said  church 
for  the  habitation  of  a  minister  to  officiate  in  the  said  church 
in  manner  aforesaid,  as  well  as  of  our  pious  inclinations  to  pro- 
mote, propagate,  and  encourage  all  our  loving  subjects  within 
our  said  province  in  that  reverend  and  Godly  duty,  in  wor- 
shiping and  serving  God  according  to  the  commendable  rites 
and  ceremonyes  of  our  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  now 
established  by  our  laws,  have  therefore  thought  fitt,  and  do 
hereby  publish,  grant,  ordaine,  manifest,  and  declare  that  our  church 
Royall  will  and  pleasure  is,  and  by  these  presents  do,  grant  ands?round 
and  declare  that  the  aforesaid  church,  erected  and  built  as  r°5h  church^' 
aforesaid,  scituate  in  and  neere  the  street  called  the  Broadway,  '^Jioflhe' 
within  our  said  City  of  New-Yorke,  and  the  ground  thereunto  {^^"churlh'* 
adjoining,  inclosed  and  used  for  a  Cemelry  or  Church  yard,  lo  use  oi  cer- 
shall  be  the  Parish  Church  and  Church  yard  of  the  Parish  of" 
Trinity  Church,  within  our  said  city  of  New  York,  and  the 
same  is  hereby  declared  to  be  for  ever  separated  and  dedeca- 
ted  to  the  service  of  God,  and  to  be  applyed  therein  [thereun- 
to] to  the  use  and  behalfe  of  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time 
inhabiting,  and  to  inhabit,  within  our  said  City  of  New  Yorke, 
in  communion  of  [with]  our  said  Protestant  Church  of  Eng- 
land as  now  established  by  our  laws,  and  to  no  other  use  or 
purpose  whatsoever,  any  statute  law,  custome,  or  usaare  to 
the  contrary  in  any  ways  notwithstanding.    And  that  Ihere 


tain  inhabi- 
tants. 


8 


CHARTER  OF  1697. 


tor  in  perpe 

■_  shall  be  a  Rector  to  have  care  of  the  souls  of  the  inhabitants 
tuauucces-  of  Said  Parish,  and  a  perpetual  succession  of  Rectors  there. 
Bisiio  of  ^^^^^  presents  constitute  our  rif^ht,  trusty,  and 

London°fir5t  Well  bcloved  the  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God  Henry  Lord 
heTndw"''  Bishop  of  London,  and  of  our  Privy  Councill,  the  first  Rec- 
10  tor  thereof.    And  we  have  further  thought  fitt  and,  at  the 
humble  request  of  our  said  loving  subjects,  are  graciously 
.     pleased  to  create  and  make  him  our  said  Right  trusty  and 
well  beloved  and  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God  Henry  Lord 
Bishop  of  London  and  his  successors,  Rectors  of  the  said  Pa- 
rish, together  with  all  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inha- 
biting, and  to  inhabit  in  our  said  City  of  New  Yorke,  and  in 
communion  of  our  aforesaid  Protestant  Church  of  England^ 
as  now  established  by  our  laws,  a  body  corporate  and  Poli- 
tiq,  with  the  powers  and  privileges  hereinafter  mentioned. 
And_ accordingly  our  Royall  will  and  pleasure  is,  and  of  our 
speciall  Grace  certaine  knowledge  and  meere  motion  We 
have  ordained,  constituted,  and  declared,  and  by  these  pre- 
sents for  us,  our  heirs  and  successors,  do  ordaine,  constitute, 
and  declare  that  he,  the  said  Right  trusty  and  well  beloved 
Persons  in-  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God,  Henry,  Lord  Bishop  of  Lon- 
coiporated.   ^^^^        j^j^  successors,  and  all  such  of  our  loving  subjects 
as  now  are  or  hereafter  shall  be,  admitted  into  the  communion 
of  [the]  aforesaid  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  now  esta- 
blished by  our  laws,  shall  be  from  time  to  time  and  for  ever 
hereafter  a  body  corporate  and  politique,  in  fact  and  name, 
vm&tioa.""''  name  of  the  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  our  said  City 

of  New  Yorke,  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  Church  of 
England  as  now  established  by  our  laws.    And  that  by  the 
Powers  of    ^^^^  name  they  and  their  successors  shall  and  may  have  per- 
corporauon  petuall  successiou,  and  shall  and  may  be  persons  able  and 

to  sue  and  be*  j  ii  »  -i  . 

•ued.         capable  m  the  law  to  sue  and  be  sued,  to  plead  and  De  imple- 
ded,  to  answer  and  be  answered  unto,  to  defend  and  be  de- 
fended in  all  and  singular  suits,  causes,  quarrells,  matters, 
actions,  and  things  of  what  kind  or  nature  soever,  and  also 
Totate      to  have,  take,  possess,  receive,  acquire,  and  purchase,  lane's, 
tdif&S."'    tenements,  heredtTrmetifs,  or  any  goods  or  chattells,  and  the 
To  lease  and  '^ase,  grant,  demise,  alien,  bargain,  sell,  and  dis- 

Beii.  pose  of  at  their  own  will  and  pleasure,  as  other  our  liege  peo- 

ple, or  any  corporation,  or  body  politicque  within  our  realme 
of  England  or  this  our  Province  may  lawfully  do,  not  exceed- 
Limitaiionof  ing  the  yea.rlyjvalue  of  five  thcHisand  pouncls,  the  statute  of 
mortmaine  or  any  other  statute  law,  custome,  or  usage  to  the 
contrary  hereof  in  any  ways  notwithstanding.    And  that  the 
Hightsof     said  Rector  shall  have  the  care  of  the  souls  of  the  inhabitants 
rector.       -within  the  said  parish,  and  in  the  communion  of  our  said 
Protestant  Church  of  England  as  now  established  by  our 
laws.    And  have  and  enjoy  to  him  and  his  successors  for 
ever  one  messuage  or  tenement  and  appurtenances  intended 
to  be  erected  on  part  of  the  said  church-yard,  or  near  there- 


CHARTER  OF  1697. 


9 


unto  as  conventiently  as  can  be  procured.  And  our  Royall  "^^^^"y" 
will  and  pleasure  is,  further,  that  the  patronage,  advowson,  vesuy. 
donation,  or  presentation  of  and  to  the  said  Rectory  and  Pa- 
rish after  the  decease  of  the  said  first  Rector,  or  the  next 
avoidance  thereof,  shall  appertain  and  belong  to,  and  be 
hereby  vested  in  the  Churchwardens  and  Vestrymen,  or  the 
major  part  of  the  said  Vestrymen,  together  with  either  of 
the  Churchwardens  of  Trinity  Church  for  the  time  being. 
And  that  all  the  succeeding  Rectors  of  the  said  Parish  and 
Parish  Church  (except  the  first  Rector  thereof  hereby  consti- 
tuted) shall  be  presented,  collated,  instituted,  and  inducted 
as  other  Rectors,  Persons,  and  Vicars  respectively  are  accus- 
tomed to  be  ;  and  we  further  declare  it  to  be  our  Royal  will 
and  pleasure  that  the  first  Rector,  and  all  the  succeeding 
Rectors  thereof,  shall  and  may  have,  take,  and  enjoy  such 
and  the  like  Oblations,  Mortuaryes,  Eastei books  or  Ofl'erings,  have  ccndii 
and  other  Ecclesiastical  Dutyes  arising  within  the  said  Parish 
of  Trinity  Church,  as  the  Vicar,  Rector,  or  parson  of  St. 
Mary  Bow,  within  our  city  of  London,  in  our  Realme  of 
England  now  enjoyeth,  and  shall  have  such  and  the  like 
profits  of  burialls  in  the  said  Church,  as  the  same  shall  be 
limited  in  the  instrument  of  dedication  thereof. 

And  we  further  declare  that  the  said  Rector  of  the  Parish 
of  Trinity  Church  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  Church 
of  England  within  our  city  of  New  Yorke,  as  now  established 
by  our  laws,  shall  and  may  forever  hereafter  have  a  common  Common 
scale,  to  serve  and  use  for  all  matters,  causes,  things  and  af  seal, 
fairs  whatsoever  of  them  and  their  successors,  and  the  same 
seale  to  alter,  change,  breake  and  make  new  from  time  to 
time,  at  their  will  and  pleasure,  as  they  shall  think  fit.  And 
further  we  will  and  ordaine,  and  by  these  presents  do  declare 
and  appoint,  that  for  the  better  ordering  and  manageing  of 
the  affairs  and  businesse  of  the  said  Corporation  ;  there  shall  Annual  eiec- 
be  annually  and  once  in  every  year  forever  on  the  Tuesday  densandTes- 
in  Easterweek  two  Church  Wardens  and  twenty  Vestrymen  "■>'""^"- 
duly  elected  by  the  majority  of  votes  of  the  inhabitants  ofyo^ers. 
the  said  Parish  in  communion  as  aforesaid,  which  Church 
Wardens  and  Vestrymen  shall  be  from  time  to  time  subject  vesiry  sub- 
to  our  laws  and  statutes  now  in  force  or  hereafter  to  be  made 
for  the  choice  of  Church  Wardens,  Overseers  of  the  Poor 
and  such  other  like  Parish  officers  and  other  Parochial!  dutyes 
within  the  said  Parish  in  like  manner  as  the  inhabitants  of 
any  Parish  within  our  Province  are  or  might  be  subject  and 
liable  unto  (except  where  it  shall  be  otherwise  hereby  ap- 
pointed.)   And  we  do  by  these  presents  constitute  and  ap- 
point Thomas  Wenham  and  Robert  Lurting  the  first  Church  Firstchurch 
Wardens  of  the  said  Parish  and  Caleb  Heatbcote,  William 
Merritt,  John  Tuder,  James  Emott,  William  Morris,  Thomas 
Clarke,  Ebenezer  Wilson,  Samuel  Burt,  James  Evetts,  Na-  men/'"^' 
thaniel  Marston,  Michael  Howden,  John  Crooke,  William 


10 


CHARTER  OF  1697. 


Duties  and 
perquisites. 


Accountable 
for  moneys. 


Rejrnlatiou 
ofalfairs  of 
the  parish. 


Vacancy  of 
vestrymen. 


Disposition 
of  pews. 


Assistant  to 
rector,  liow 
appointed. 


Clerk  and 
sextons.  „ 


Tlieir  fees. 


Sharpas,  Lawrence  ReatJe,  David  Jamison,  William  Huflrlle' 
ston,  Gabriel  Ludlow,  Thomas  Burroughs,  John  Merrill,  and 
William  Janeway  the  first  Vestrymen  of  the  said  Parish,  to 
have  and  to  hold  and  execute  their  said  respective  offices  till 
the  feast  of  Easther,  [Easter]  which  shall  be  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  one  thousand  six  hundred  and  ninety-eight ;  and  the  said 
Church  Wardens  shall  have  and  receive  such  and  the  like 
church  dutyes  and  perquisites  as  the  Church  Wardens  of  the 
said  Parish  of  St.  Mary  Bow  do,  may,  might  or  ought  to  re- 
ceive and  shall  be  accomptable  for  the  same,  and  all  other 
moneys  as  shall  come  to  them  as  Church  Wardens  in  such 
manner  as  Church  Wardens  of  any  other  Parishes  within  our 
city  of  London  are  or  ought  to  be. 

Ami  we  further  declare  it  to  be  our  Royall  will  and  plea- 
sure that  tlie  Rector,  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  shall 
make  the  number  of  the  whole  to  be  twenty-three  persons, 
and  the  said  Vestrymen  or  any  eleven  or  more  of  them 
whereof  the  Rector  for  the  time  being  or  his  assistant  or 
clarke  by  appointment  and  one  of  the  Church  Wardens  to  be 
two,  shall  and  may  have  and  exercise  the  like  power  and  au- 
thority for  the  ordering  and  regulating  the  affairs  of  the  said 
Corporation  and  Parish  of  Trinity  Church  as  the  Vestry  of 
the  said  Parish  of  St.  Mary  Bow  now  have  and  exercise  in 
reference  to  Parish  affairs,  and  upon  the  death  or  other  void- 
ance  of  any  such  vestrymen  they  or  any  eleven  or  more  of 
them  shall  and  may  elect  a  fit  person,  inhabitant  and  house- 
holder in  the  said  Parish  to  supply  the  same.  And  we  fur- 
ther ordaine  and  declare,  that  the  Church  Wardens  for  the 
time  being  shall  not  at  any  time  dispose  of  any  of  the  Pews, 
or  places  in  Pews  in  the  said  Church,  to  any  person  not  an 
inhabitant  thereof,  nor  without  the  consent  and  allowance  of 
the  Vestrymen  for  the  time  being  or  any  eleven  or  more  of 
them.  And  our  further  will  and  pleasure  is,  and  we  by  these 
presents  declare,  that  the  Rector  of  the  said  Parish  for  the 
time  being  shall  and  may  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  said 
Vestrymen  and  Church  Wardens  for  the  time  being  or  any 
eleven  or  more  of  them,  whereof  one  of  the  Churche's  War- 
dens to  be  one,  from  time  to  time  nominate  one  able  Protest- 
ant minister  in  Priest's  orders  to  reside  in  the  said  Parish  to* 
be  Preacher  and  assistant  to  the  said  Rector  and  his  succes- 
sors in  the  celebration  of  the  Divine  Offices  of  Praying  and 
Preaching  and  other  dutyes  incident  to  be  performed  in  the 
said  Church  and  Parish,  as  the  said  Rector  shall  require  of 
him,  and  likewise  to  nominate  a  fitt  person  to  be  Clarke  of 
the  said  Parish  and  one  or  more  Sexton  or  Sextons,  to  which 
Clarke  or  Sextons  respectively  there  shall  be  such  and  the 
like  dues,  fees,  perquisites  and  profits  paid  and  allowed  as 
shall  be  establishetl  by  the  said  Rector,  Church  Wardens  and 
Vestrymen  in  manner  aforesaid,  which  said  Preacher,  assist- 
ant, Clarke  and  Sexton  or  Sextons  and  every  of  them  shall 


CHARTER  OF  1697. 


Jl 


continue  in  his  said  place  during  his  or  their  naturall  lives,  if  ^^""1- °rec- 
they  shall  so  long  inhabit  there,  except  for  some  offence  or 
misgovernment  by  them  or  any  of  them  committed  and  un- 
lesse  for  cause  reasonable  proved  they  shall  be  displaced  by 
the  said  Rector  for  the  time  being  by  and  with  the  consent 
of  the  said  Vestrymen  or  any  eleven  or  more  of  them  ;  and 
that  the  Church  Wardens  of  the  said  Parish  of  Trinity  Church 
for  the  time  being  shall  and  are  hereby  required  from  time  to 
time  to  pay  the  yearly  sume  of  ten  pounds  to  the  Gierke  to  ■ 
be  appointed  as  aforesaid  out  of  the  profits  and  other  the  du- 
tyes  and  perquisites  to  them  accrueing  in  the  said  Church 
and  Parish  by  four  quarterly  payments,  that  is  to  say  on  the 
feast  of  St.  Michaell  the  Arch  Angell,  the  birth  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  the  annunciation  of  the  blessed 
Virgin  Mary  and  St.  John  the  Baptist  or  tenn  days  after 
every  of  the  said  respective  feasts  by  equal!  and  even  por- 
tions. And  we  further  ordaine  and  declare,  that  the  said 
Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  or  any  eleven  or  more  of 
them  are  by  these  presents  authorised  and  required  within 
the  space  and  time  of  three  hundred  days  next  and  after  the 
sealing  and  enrolling  of  these  presents  to  make  or  cause  to 
be  made  an  estimate  in  writing  under  the  hand  or  hands  of  b'S'eof 
some  sufficient  person  or  persons  qualified  for  the  same  of  the  g^^^j^'J^t"'^ 
charge  and  finishing  the  said  Church  and  steeple  and  provi-  churchr&.<:- 
ding  a  clock  and  one  or  more  bells  for  the  same  and  other 
works  necessary  and  requisite  in  and  about  the  said  Church 
and  steeple,  and  of  building  a  convenient  house  for  the  said 
Rector,  and  such  sume  or  sumes  of  money  as  shall  appear  to 
them  upon  such  estimate  to  be  in  their  judgment  competent 
to  accomplish  the  premises  and  to  satisfy  and  pay  the  debts 
incurred  for  or  bv  reason  of  the  said  Church,  shall  be  by  . 

J  /•  ^1  1  1  11         1  Amount  how 

them  or  any  eleven  or  more  of  them  charged  upon  all  and  to  be  raised.' 
every  of  the  inhabitants  in  the  s^id  Parish,  to  be  by  them 
paid  in  seven  years  by  twenty-eight  quarterly  and  successive 
payments,  the  first  whereof  to  commence  and  become  payable 
to  the  Church  Wardens  for  the  time  beiog,  who  are  hereby 
authorised  to  receive  the  same  at  the  first  of  the  feast  dayes 
aforesaid  as  shall  happen  after  the  assessing  and  taxing 
thereof,  and  the  rest  to  be  successively  to  them  also  quarterly 
paid  at  the  successive  feast  dayes  aforesaid  until  all  the  said 
twenty-eight  quarterly  payments  shall  be  made  and  finished. 
And  the  said  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  or  any  eleven 
or  more  of  them  are  hereby  required  and  authorised  within 
three  hundred  aud  sixty-five  dayes  next  and  after  the  sealing 
and  enrolling  of  these  presents  to  assess,  tax  and  rate  the  first 
of  the  said  quarterly  payments  after  a  pound  rate  or  other- 
wise, as  they  shall  think  most  reasonable,  equall  and  meet, 
and  in  like  manner  to  assess  every  other  of  the  said  quarterly 
payments  within  fourty  dayes  after  the  time  of  payment  of 
the  next  preceding  quarterly  payment.    All  which  said  as- 


12 


CHARTER  OF  1697. 


i1i'b"coiifir-'  sessraents  shall  be  confirmed  and  allowed  by  two"  Justices  of 
med.        the  Peace  within  the  said  Parish  and  in  communion  of  the 
said  Church  as  aforesaid  under  their  hands  and  seals  and  be 
collected  by  such  persons  inhabitants  of  the  said  Parish  as  by 
I       the  said  Vestrymen  or  any  eleven  or  more  of  them  shall  from 
time  to  time  under  their  hands  and  seals  appoint. 
Deficiency       And  We  further  declare  that  if  the  estimate  and  computa- 
how  raised.  ^-^^^  made  as  aforesaid  shall  not  be  sufficient  to  discharge 

the  debts  incurred  about  the  building  and  finishing  of  the  said 
Church  and  Steeple  and  other  the  works  hereby  intended  to 
be  done,  the  said  Vestrymen  or  any  eleven  or  more  of  them 
shall  and  may  charge  and  assess  such  additional!  sum  or  sums 
upon  the  said  inhabitants  of  the  said  Parish  in  communion  as 
aforesaid  as  shall  be  needful  to  perfect  and  accomplish  the 
same  so  as  such  additionall  sume  together  with  the  sume 
Amount li-  hereby  charged  and  payable  by  the  said  twenty-eight  quarter- 
miied.  ]y  payments  exceed  not  in  the  whole  the  sume  of  five  hundred 
pounds. 

contrncis  to  And  We  further  declare  it  to  be  our  Royall  will'and  plea- 
J"^ ^o^j^'"*'' sure  that  the  church  wardens  of  the  said  Parish  of  Trinity 
Church  shall  cause  all  the  debts,  credits  and  contracts  made 
and  to  be  made  with  or  by  the  artificers  and  workmen  em- 
ployed or  to  be  employed  for  any  work  or  building  to  be 
made  or  done  in  or  about  the  said  Church  Steeple  and  pre- 
mises to  be  entered  and  registered  in  one  or  more  book  or 
books  to  be  kept  for  that  purpose,  and  the  said  Vestrymen  or 
any  eleven  or  more  of  them  out  of  the  money  collected  and 
paid  to  the  said  Church  Wardens  upon  the  said  quarterly 
payments  or  by  any  other  ways  or  means  for  the  use  afore- 
said, shall  in  the  first  place  pay  and  discharge  or  cause  to  be 
paid  and  discharged,  all  such  debts  as  shall  become  due  unto 
w^be'fi'rtt'"'  artificers  and  workmen  imployed  or  to  be  imployed  in 
paid.  and  about  the  finishing  the  said  Church  Steeple,  house  and 
premises,  and  shall  issue  and  pay  or  cause  to  be  issued  and 
paid  to  the  said  artificers  and  workmen  as  aforesaid  all  and 
every  sume  and  sumcs  of  money  now  or  hereafter  due  and 
payable  unto  them  their  executors,  administrators  or  assigns, 
proportionably  according  to  the  dates  of  the  registering  of 
their  debts  and  credits  as  aforesaid  with  moderate  interest  if 
need  shall  be  for  their  forbearance  thereof. 

And  We  further  declare  that  the  Church  Wardens  of  [for]  the 
said  Parish  for  the  time  being  together  with  any  eleven  or  more 
ra""J"opay  of  the  said  Vestrymen  shall  upon  the  Tuesday  of  |in|  Easter 
preacherl    [^^^ter  |  Week  yearly  forever,  or  at  any  time  within  tenn  days 
and  for  eon-  after  the  Said  Tuesday  tax,  rate  and  assess  the  yearly  sume  of 
chSges.      thirty  pounds  upon  the  Inhabitants  of  the  said  Parish  in  Com- 
munion as  aforesaid,  for  the  payment  of  the  Preacher  assistant 
to  be  nominated  and  appointed  as  aforesaid,  and  for  the  pay- 
ing and  defraying  the  other  contingent  charges  that  may 
yearly  accrue  within  the  said  Parish  which  said  assessment 


CHARTER  OF  1697. 


13 


shall  be  confirmed  and  allowed  in  such  manner  as  other  the 
assessments  hereby  appointed  to  be  made  as  aforesaid,  and 
be  collected  and  paid  yearly  to  the  Church  Wardens  for  the 
time  being  by  such  person  and  persons  as  the  said  Church 
Wardens  and  Vestrymen  shall  appoint  at  the  four  usual],  or 
times  of  the  year  before  mentioned,  the  first  payment  to  begin 
and  be  made  at  the  [that]  feast  day  next  and  after  the  said  preach- 
er assistant  shall  be  presented  and  enter  to  assist  the  said  Rector 
in  the  said  Church  in  manner  aforesaid,  and  the  said  Church 
Wardens  or  either  of  them  shall  pay  the  said  yearly  same  of 
thirty  pounds  over  and  above  all  charges  and  deductions  for 
collecting  the  same  to  the  said  Preacher  assistant  tor  the  time 
being  to  be  nominated  as  aforesaid  upon  the  said  four  usuall 
feasts  or  terms  in  the  year  by  even  and  equal  portions. 

And  We  further  ordaine  and  declare  it  to  be  our  Royal! 
will  and  pleasure  that  the  said  Church  Wardens,  together  F^'^^''"'' 
■with  eleven  or  more  of  the  Vestrymen  of  the  said  Parish  ciiufcb,  &c 
shall  and  are  hereby  authorised  from  time  to  time  to  make 
rates  and  assessments  in  manner  aforesaid  for  the  repairing 
and  amending  the  said  Church,  Steeple,  Cemetery  or  church 
yard  of  the  said  Parish  -when  need  shall  be,  the  said  rates 
taxes  and  assessments  for  repairing  and  amending  the  church 
and  premises  to  be  paid  to  the  said  Church  Wardens  of  the 
said  Parish  and  those  and  all  other  the  said  last  mentioned 
taxes  rates  and  assessments  to  be  made  and  collected,  con- 
firmed and  allowed  as  aforesaid,  and  moreover  of  our  special 
grace  certaine  Knowledge  and  meer  motion,  We  do  give 
grant  ratify  and  confirm  unto  the  said  Rector  and  inhabitants 
of  our  said  City  of  New-Yorke  in  communion  of  our  Pro- 
testant Church  of  England  as  now  established  by  our  laws  The  said 
that  the  said  Church  and  Coemetry  or  Church  yard  scituate  ?emet^y^o 
lying  and  being  within  our  said  City  of  New-Yorke  as  afore-    the  only 

-        -    --  -       P         -  -         -  •!  .  -      -  .  parish 


and 


said,  shall  be  the  sole  and  only  Parish  Church  and  Church  church 
yard  of  our  said  City  of  New  Yorke.  And  our  Royal  plea- 
sure  is  and  we  by  these  presents  do  declare  that  the  said  Rec- 
tor of  the  said  Parish  Church  is  a  good  sufficient  Protestant 
Minister  according  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  said 
Act  of  Assembly  made  in  the  aforesaid  fifth  year  of  our 
Reigne  entitled  an  Act  for  the  settling  of  a  ministry,  &c.,and 
as  such  We  do  further  of  our  like  speciall  grace  certaine 
Knowledge  and  meer  motion  give  grant  Ratitye  endow  ap-  Confirmation 
propriate  and  confirm  unto  the  said  Rector  of  the  Parish  of  ^efiJo^^M 
Trinity  Church  within  our  said  City  of  New  Yorke  and  his  pounds  for 
successors  forever  -the  aforesaid  yearly  maintainance  of  one 
hundred  pounds  directed  by  the  said  Act  of  Assembly  to  be 
yearly  laid  assessed  and  paid  unto  the  said  sufficient  Protestant 
minister  for  his  yearly  maintainance,  to  have  and  to  hold  the 
said  yearly  maintainance  of  one  hundred  pounds  aforesaid 
unto  him  the  said  Rector  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church 
within  our  said  City  of  New-Yorke  and  his  successors  to  the 

2 


14 


CHARTER  OF  1697. 


sole  and  only  proper  use  benefit  ami  behoofe  of  him  the  saitl 
Rector  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church  within  our  said  City 
of  New  Yorke  and  his  successors  forever.    And  We  doe 
by  these  presents  strictly  charge  require  and  command  the 
How  10  be   Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  yearly  constituted  elected 
raised.        and  appointed  by  the  aforesaid  Act  of  Assembly  made  as 
aforesaid  that  they  faithfully  truly  and  without  fraud  annually 
and  once  in  every  year  forever  levey  assess  and  collect  the 
said  yearly  maintainance  of  one  hundred  pounds  current 
money  aforesaid  according  to  the  rules  directions  and  clauses 
in  the  said  Act  of  Assembly  mentioned  and  under  the  pains 
and  penaltyes  therein  contained  and  that  the  said  Church 
Wardens  mentioned  in  the  aforesaid  Act  of  Assembly  do  an- 
AniJpaid.    uually  in  four  quarterly  payments  pay  the  said  yearly  main- 
tainance of  one  hundred  pounds  leveyed,  assessed  and  col- 
lected as  aforesaid  unto  the  said  Rector  of  the  Parish  of 
\    Trinity  Church  and  to  bis  successors  forever  as  of  right  they 
r  ought  to  do  without  any  delay,  lett,  hindrance  refusal!  dis- 

ij  turbance  or  molestation  whatsoever  as  they  and  every  of  them 

will  answer  the  contrary  under  the  pains  and  penaltyes  in  the 
said  Act  of  Assembly  ordained.  And  We  further  declare 
that  upon  any  neglect  or  refusall  of  the  said  Church  Wardens 
and  Vestrymen  (appointed  by  the  said  act")  of  their  ievvina" 

V(K=trsr  liable  .       •'    u     }■  1         •       *u        -1  1  ■   t  ■ 

toactionfor  asscssmg  Collecting  and  paying  the  said  yearly  maintainance 
raKe  ajid°  hundred  pounds  as  aforesaid  that  it  shall  and  may  be 

pay  above  lawfull  for  the  Said  Rector  or  incumbent  of  the  said  Parish 
for  the  time  being  to  prosecute  the  said  Church  Wardens  and 
Vestrymen  in  an  action  of  debt  in  any  of  the  Courts  of  Re- 
cord within  our  said  province  wherein  no  Essoine,  protection 
or  wager  of  law  shall  be  allowed  any  thing  contained  in  the 
said  Act  to  the  contrary  hereof  in  any  wayes  notwithstand- 
ing. 

And  We  do  of  our  like  speciall  grace  certaine  Knowledge 
and  meer  motion  give  and  grant  unto  the  said  Rector  and 
Power  to  at- inhabitants  of  our  city  of  New  Yorke  in  communion,  &c 


meellns!"'^  full  powcr  and  authority  from  time  to  time  to  appoint,  alter, 
and  change  such  days  and  times  of  meeting  as  they  shall 
To  admit  think  fitt,  and  to  choose,  nominate  and  appoint  so  many 
bersonh?'  Others  of  our  Leige  people  as  they  shall  think  fitt,  and  shall 
corporation,       willinci  to  acccpt  the  same  to  be  members  of  the  said 

and  to  con-  n  1  _  i   ,      i     t.  i-  •  i  i 

stitute other  church  and  corporation  and  body  roliticque  and  them  into 
officers.      ^j^^  same  to  admitt  and  to  elect  and  constitute  such  other 
officer  and  officers  as  they  shall  think  fitt  and  requisite  for 
the  orderly  manageing  and  dispatching  of  the  affairs  of  the 
said  Church  and  corporation  and  their  Successors,  and  from 
To  make     time  to  time  to  make,  ordaine  and  constitute  or  repeale  such 
ordlnmices.  Tulcs,  ordcrs  and  ordinances  for  the  good  and  welfare  of  the 
members  of  the  said  church  and  corporation,  so  that  those 
rules  orders  and  ordinances  be  not  repugnant  to  th(^  laws  of 
our  Realme  of  England  and  of  this  our  province.    And  We 


CHARTER  OF  1697. 


15 


further  declaie,  and  by  these  presents  doe  give,  grant,  lycence 
and  permitt  unto  the  said  Rector  and  inhabitants,  &c.,  that 
the  said  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen,  or  any  other 
appointed  by  them  may  from  time  to  time  and  at  all  times 
hereafter  upon  the  Lords  day  after  divine  service,  or  at  any  to  receive 
other  time  or  times  when  they  shall  think  [it  1  convenient  take  voluntary 

1  r         1  •!•  pits  by  eol- 

and  receive  the  tree  and  voluntary  gifts,  alms,  contributions,  lectionsfor 
and  offerings  of  all  or  any  of  our  loving  subjects,  which  col- po^"^' 
lections,  gatherings  or  receivings  shall  be  imployed  by  them 
for  and  towards  the  finishing  of  the  said  church  steeple  and 
premises,  or  any  other  pious  and  charitable  worke  as  to  them 
shall  seeme  meete  and  convenient,  any  Statute  or  Laws  to 
the  contrary  hereof  in  any  wayes  notwithstanding.    To  have 
and  to  hold,  all  and  every  of  the  premises,  together  with  all 
and  singular  the  rights,  customs,  usages,  benefits,  members, 
advantages,  advowsons,  presentations,  Mortuarys,  oblations,  Grant  to  be 
offerings,  ffees,  perquisites,  profits,  Royaltyes,  hereditaments 
and  appurtenances  whatsoever  unto  the  said  church,  church 
yard  and  premises  belonging,  or  in  any  wise  appertaining 
unto  them  the  sd.  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  our  said  city  of 
New  Yorke  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Church  of  Eng- 
land, as  now  established  by  our  laws  and  their  successors 
To  the  sole  and  only  use,  benefit  and  behoofe  of  them,  the 
said  Rector,  inhabitants,  &c.,  and  their  successors  forever. 
To  be  holden  of  us,  our  heirs  and  successors  in  ffree  and  com-  Nature  oi' 
mon  soccage  as  of  our  mannour  of  East  Greenwich  in  our 
county  of  Kent  within  our  Rcalme  of  England,  yielding, 
rendering,  and  paying  therefor  yearly  and  every  year  unto 
us,  our  heirs  and  successors  on  the  feast  day  of  the  annuncia- 
tion of  our  blessed  Virgin  Mary  at  our  City  of  New  Yorke 
the  yearly  rent  of  one  Pepper  Corne,  if  the  same  be  lawfully  Yearly  rent 
demanded  in  lieu  and  stead  of  all  other  rents,  dues,  dutyes  if  tiemanded. 
and  demands  whatsoever  for  the  premises. 

And  lastly,  We  do  for  us,  our  heirs  and  successors,  ordain 
and  grant  unto  the  said  Rector  and  inhabitants,  &c.,  and  their 
successors  by  these  presents,  that  these  our  grants  shall  be 
firme,  good  effectuall  and  available  in  all  things  in  the  law 
to  all  intents,  constructions  and  purposes  whatsoever  accord- 
ing  to  our  true  intent  and  meaning  herein  before  declared, 


^5 


and  shall  be  construed,  reputed  and  adjudged  in  all  cases  To  be  favor, 
most  favorable,  and  on  the  behalfe  and  for  the  best  benefite  stmed  for 


and  behoofe  of  the  said  Rector  and  inhabitants,  &c.,  and  their 
successors,  altho  expresse  mention  of  the  true  and  yearly 
value,  uncertainty  of  the  premises,  or  any  of  them  in  these 
presents  are  not  named,  or  any  statute,  act,  ordinance,  provi- 
sion, proclamation,  or  restriction  heretofore  had,  made  enacted, 
ordained,  provided,  proclaimed  or  [and]  restrained,  or  any  other 
matter,  clause,  or  thing  whatsoever,  to  the  contrary  hereof  in 
any  wayes  notwithstanding.  And  We  further  declare  it  to 
be  our  Royall  Will  and  pleasure  that  nothing  herein  con- 


benefit  of 

corporation. 


16 


CHARTER  OF  1697. 


Not  to  street  taincd  nor  any  clause  or  article  here  [herein]  above  mentionet! 
grants  to  shall  be  construcd  or  taken  to  abridge  or  take  away  any  right 
Cheches,  privilege,  benefite,  liberty  or  Lycence  that  we  have  htretofore 
granted  unto  any  church  in  communion  of  our  Protestant 
faith  within  our  said  Province  of  New  Yorke,  any  thing  con- 
tained herein  to  the  contrary  hereof  in  any  wayes  notwith- 
standing. In  testimony  whereof,  wee  have  caused  the  Great 
scale  of  our  said  Province  to  be  hereunto  affixed.  Witnesse 
our  trusty  and  well  beloved  Benjamin  Ffletcher,  our  Captaine 
Generall  and  Governour  in  Chiefe  of  our  Province  of  New 
Yorke,  and  the  territoryes  and  tracts  of  land  depending 
thereon  in  America  and  Vice- Admirall  of  the  same  our  Lieut- 
tennant  and  Commander  in  Chiefe  of  the  Militia  and  of  all 
the  forces  by  sea  and  land  within  our  Collony  of  Connecti- 
cutt  and  of  all  the  fforts  and  places  of  strength  within  the 
same  in  Council  at  our  ffort  in  New  Yorke  the  Sixth  day  of 
May,  in  the  ninth  year  of  our  Reigne  Annoq.  Domi.  1697. 

BEN.  FFLETCHER. 
By  his  Excellenceyes  command, 
David  Jamison,  D.  Sec'ry. 

State  of  New  York,  Secretary's  Office. 

I  have  compared  the  preceding  with  a  certain  Instrument 
in  writing  recorded  in  this  office  in  Book  of  Patent's  No.  7, 
page  82,, &c.,  and  do  certify  that  the  same  is  a  correct  tran- 
scrip  therefrom,  and  of  the  whole  of  said  Instrument. 

ARCH'D  CAMPBELL, 

Dep.  Sec.  of  State. 

Albany,  June  20,  1845. 


COLONIAL  ACT  OF  1704. 

(From  Van  Schaack's  edition,  p.  60.) 

CHAPTER  CXLI. 

(Repealed    An  Act  for  granting  sundry  Privileges  and  Powers  to  the 
by  sec^^e^f     Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York,  of  the 
aVui7S4:      Communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  Law  estab- 
lished.    Passed  the  27th  of  June,  1704. 

Whereas,  the  Inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York,  of  the 
Communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  Law  estab- 
lished, for  some  years  past,  by  voluntary  contribution  of 
themselves  and  others,  favoring  the  Church's  Interest,  have 
erected  a  Church  within  the  said  City,  for  the  service  and 
worship  of  Almighty  God,  called,  and  known  by  the  name 
of  Trinity  Church;  and  have  purchased  and  procured,  and  do 


COLONIAL  ACT  OF  1704. 


17 


quietly  and  peaceably  hold,  use,  exercise,  and  enjoy  the  said 
Church,  with  ihe  Cemetry  or  Burying- place,  and  a  certain 
Tract  of  land  belonging  thereunto,  bounded  easterly  upon  the 
street  commonly  called  the  Broad-way,  containing  in  Breadth, 
on  the  West  side  of  the  said  street,  three  hundred  and  ten 
foot,  or  thereabouts,  from  the  north-east  corner  of  the  ground 
commonly  called  the  Queen^s  Garden^  to  the  land  of  John 
Hutckins,  Esq.;  thence  by  a  straight  line  along  the  north 
side  of  the  said  Burying-Place,  continued  to  Low  Water 
Mark  of  Hudson's  River;  thence  by  a  line  Southward  along 
the  said  River  three  hundred  ninety  and  five  foot,  all  English 
measure ;  and  from  thence  by  the  line  of  the  said  Garden 
easterly,  to  the  place  where  it  begun  ;  together  with  sundry 
Powers,  Rights,  Privileges,  and  Preheminences,  necessary  for 
the  manageing  of  the  afi'airs  of  the  said  Church  ;  which  by  the 
Blessing  of  God  has  been  attended  with  great  success ;  and 
the  congregation  thereof  being  much  increased,  calls  for 
suitable  Encouragement ;  To  the  end  therefore,  that  such  re- 
ligious work  may  be  founded  upon  some  lasting  foundation, 
grow  up  and  become  fruitful,  to  the  praise  and  glory  of  God, 
the  good  example  of  others,  and  the  benefit  of  their  posterity 
and  successors. 

1.  Be  it  enacted  hy  his  Excellency  Edward  Viscount 
Cornbury,  Captain  General  and  Governor-in-Chief  of  the 
Colony  of  New-York,  by  and  with  the  consent  offler  Majes- 
tyh  Council,  and  this  General  Jlssembly,  and  by  authority  of 
the  same,  That  from  henceforward  forever  hereafter,  the 
Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  said  City  of  JYew-York,  in 
Communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  law  established 
and  their  successors,  be,  and  shall  be  able  and  capable  in  the 
law,  for  the  maintainance  and  recovery  of  their  estates,  rights, 
and  privileges  whatsoever,  to  sue,  and  be  sued,  plead  and  be 
impleaded,  to  answer  and  be  answered  unto,  defend  and  be 
defended  by  the  same  name  of  the  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of 
the  City  of  New- York,  in  Communion  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land as  by  Law  established,  in  all  suits.  Quarrels,  Controver- 
sies, Causes,  Actions,  Matters  and  Things  whatsoever,  in  any 
Court  or  Courts  of  Common  Law  or  Equity  whatsoever  ;  and 
that  by  the  same  Name  they  and  their  Successors  do  and  shall 
lawfully  have,  hold,  use  exercise,  and  enjoy  all  and  singular 
their  said  Church  Burying  Place,  and  Land  thereto  belong- 
ing, with  the  Hereditaments  and  Appurtenances,  heretofore 
by  them  and  their  predecessors  by  whatsoever  Name  or 
Names  the  same  were  purchased  and  had,  or  to  them  given 
or  granted,  and  by  them  or  any  of  them  used  and  enjoyed  for 
the  Uses  aforesaid,  to  them  and  their  Successors,  to  the  sole 
and  only  proper  Use  and  Benefit  of  the  said  Rector  and  In- 
habitants, and  their  Successors  forever,  in  as  firm  and  ample 
Manner,  in  the  Law,  as  if  the  said  Rector  and  Inhabitants 
had  been  legally  incorporated,  and  made  capable  in  the  Law 


COLONIAL  ACT  OF  1704. 


to  take,  receive,  purchase,  have,  hold,  use,  and  enjoy  the  snme, 
at,  and  before  the  purchasing,  taking,  receiving,  and  holding 
of  the  said  Cemetry,  and  Lands  thereunto  belonging,  and  law- 
fully had,  held,  and  enjoyed  the  same;  any  Law,  Usage,  or 
Custom  to  the  contrary  thereof,  in  anywise  notwithstanding. 

IL  And  be  it  further  enacted  hy  the  Authority  afore- 
said^ That  the  said  Rector  and  Inhabitants  and  their  Suc- 
cessors by  the  same  Name  from  henceforward,  forever,  have, 
and  shall  have  full  Power,  good  Right,  and  lawful  Authori- 
ty, to  have,  take,  receive,  acquire  and  purchase,  and  use,  and 
enjoy  Lands,  Tenements,  and  Hereditaments,  Goods  and 
Chattels  ;  and  to  demise,  lease  and  improve  the  said  lands  te- 
nements and  hereditaments,  and  to  use  and  improve  such  goods 
and  Chattels,  to  the  benefit  of  the  said  Church,  and  other  pious 
uses,  not  exceeding  Five  Hundred  Pounds  yearly  Rent,  or 
Income  ;  any  Law,  Usage,  or  Custom  to  the  Contrary  here- 
of in  any  Wise  notwithstanding.  And  it  shall  and  may  be 
lawful  for  the  said  Rector  and  Inhabitants,  and  their  Suc- 
cessors to  finish  and  adorn  the  said  Church,  alter  enlarge,  and 
amend  the  same  or  any  part ;  as  also  to  erect  and  build  a 
convenient  dwelling  House,  Garden,  and  Appurtenances,  for 
the  Use  of  their  Rector  for  the  Time  being,  a  Vestry  Room, 
Charnel  House,  and  other  necessaries  of  tlie  said  Church  ; 
and  to  enclose,  support,  and  maintain  the  same  from  Time  to 
Time,  as  there  shall  be  need  thereof. 

III.  And  be  it  further  enacted  hy  the  Jluthority  afore- 
said, That  the  said  Church  and  Premises,  be  from  hencefor- 
ward forever  set  apart  and  separated  for  the  Religious  Uses 
aforesaid  ;  and  that  the  Patronage  and  Advowson  of  the  said 
Church,  and  Right  of  Presentation  (after  the  Death  of  the 
Present  Rector,  or  upon  next  Avoidance,  and  forever  there- 
after) shall  belong  and  appertain  to  the  Church- Wardens, 
and  Vestrymen  of  the  said  Church,  annually  elected  or  to  be 
elected,  by  the  Inhabitants  aforesaid,  in  Communion  as  afore- 
said, in  Manner  hereafter  mentioned,  and  expressed,  or  to  the 
major  part  of  said  Church- Wardens  and  Vestry  men  for  the 
Time  being,  whereof  one  Church-Warden  always  to  be  one  ; 
which  Rectors  shall  be  instituted  and  inducted  into  the  said 
Church,  in  such  manner,  and  always  as  shall  be  most  suita- 
ble and  agreeable  to  her  Majesty's  Instructions  to  his  Excel- 
lency the  Governor  of  this  Colony  for  the  Time  being,  and 
that  Canonical  Right  and  Authority,  which  the  Right  Reve- 
rend Father  in  God,  Hetiry  Lord  Bishop  of  London  and  his 
Successors,  hath,  and  shall  have  over  the  said  Church. 

IV.  And  be  it  further  enacted  hy  the  Authority  afore- 
said, That  the  succeeding  Rector  or  Incumbent  of  the  said 
Church,  next  after  the  Death  or  other  Avoidance  of  Mr. 
William  Vesey,  present  Rector  and  his  Successors  forever, 
be,  and  shall  be  instituted,  authorized,  and  empowered,  tu 
have,  and  receive,  and  shall  have,  and  receive  the  sum  of 


COLONIAL  ACT  OF  1704. 


One  Hundred  Pounds  yearly,  raised  and  levied  upon  the  In- 
habitants of  the  said  City,  iov  the  maintenance  of  a  good 
sufficient  Protestant  Minister  in  the  City  aforesaid,  by  virtue 
of  an  act  of  General  Assembly,  of  this  Colony,  made  and 
enacted  in  the  fifth  year  of  the  Reign  of  King  William  and 
Queen  Mary,  entitled,  act  for  settlincr  a  Ministry,  and 
raising  a  Maintenance  for  them  in  the  City  of  New- York, 
Covnty  of  Richmond,  West-Chester  and  Queen's  County  : 
any  Law,  Custom,  or  Usage,  to  the  contrary  thereof  in  any 
wise  notwithstanding. 

V.  And  be  it  further  enacted  hy  the  Authority  afore- 
said. That  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  for  the  said  Rector  and 
Inhabitants,  in  Communion  as  aforesaid,  and  their  Succes- 
sors, forever  hereafter,  to  have,  and  use  a  common  Seal ;  and 
the  same  to  alter,  break,  and  new  make  at  their  discretion. 

VI.  And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  Authority  afore- 
said, That  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  for  the  Inhabitants 
aforesaid,  to  assemble  and  meet  tosrether  on  Tuesday  in 
Easter  Week,  annually  at  the  said  Church,  to  chuse  two 
Church-Wardens,  and  Twenty  Vestry-men,  Communicants 
of  the  said  Church,  to  serve  and  officiate  for  the  next  ensu- 
ing year  ;  by  the  Majority  of  the  voice  of  the  said  Commu- 
nicants, so  met  and  not  otherwise  ;  which  said  Church-War- 
dens so  chosen,  and  hereafter  to  be  chosen  annually,  have, 
and  shall  have  like  Power,  and  Authority  to  do,  execute  and 
perform  their  said  Offices,  respectively  as  Church-Wardens 
and  Vestry-men  in  England  have,  unless  some  particular  dif- 
ference may  happen,  by  the  express  power  and  direction  of 
this  present  Act  of  General  Assembly.  And  it  shall,  and  may 
be  lawful  for  the  said  Church  W^ardens,  or  one  of  them  at 
any  Time  or  Times,  and  so  often  as  shall  be  needful,  to  call 
a  meeting  of  the  Vestry-men  of  said  Church,  to  meet  the 
Rector  for  the  Time  being,  if  any  there  be,  and  Church 
^Vardens  or  one  of  them ;  which  said  Rector  and  Church 
Wardens  or  one  of  them,  and  Majority  of  the  Vestry-men, 
for  the  time  being,  have,  and  shall  have  Power  to  make  such 
Rules  and  Orders,  for  managing  the  affairs  of  the  said  Church 
as  they  or  the  said  Rector  and  one  Church  Warden,  with  the 
Major  number  of  the  Vestry-men,  so,  from  Time  to  Time 
met  and  assembled,  shall  agree  upon;  which  said  majority 
of  Vestry-men  together  with  the  Rector  and  one  Church 
Warden  at  least,  shall  have  the  sole  Disposition  and  order- 
ing of  all  payment  of  the  Church's  Monies  ;  all  which  Rules, 
Orders  and  payments  shall  be  fairly  entered  and  kept  in 
books  for  that  purpose  ;  Provided,  nevertheless,  in  case 
of  the  Death  of  the  said  Rector,  and  before  the  said  Church 
be  supplied  with  another,  that  the  same  Powers  and  Autho- 
rities relating  to  the  making  of  Rules  and  Orders,  as  also  the 
Disposition  and  payment  of  the  Church's  Money,  be  fully 
invested  in  the  Church  Wardens  for  the  time  being,  by  and 


COLONIAL  ACT  OF  1704. 


with  the  Advice  and  Consent  of  the  Major  number  of  the 
•whole  Vestry-men,  and  not  otherwise,  to  be  entered  r.nd  kept 
in  manner  aforesaid ;  anything  herein  contained  to  the  con- 
trary thereof  notwithstanding.    And  it  shiill  and  may  be 
lawful  for  the  said  Church  Wardens  and  Vestry-men,  or  Ma- 
jor Part  of  them,  whereof,  one  Church  Warden  always  to 
be  one,  without  their  Rector,  to  establish  and  regulale  all 
Fees  and  Perquisites  of  their  Rector,  Clerk,  Sexton,  and 
other  officers  of  said  Church,  provided  none  of  the  Fees  or 
perquisites  shall  exceed  the  Fees  or  Perquisites  usually  taken 
in  England  by  such  Officers  respectively,  with  regard  to  the 
Difference  of  the  Value  of  Money  in  this  Colony  ;  as  also 
for  the  said  Church  Wardens  and  Vestry-men  or  major  part 
of  them,  with  their  said  Rector  to  regulate  c.nd  order  the  Per- 
quisites of  the  Church  growing  and  coming  by  the  breakinc 
of  the  ground  in  the  Cemetry  or  Church  Yard,  and  in  the 
Church  for  burying  the  Dead,  provided  the  Perquisites  for 
breaking  the  ground  in  the  Cemetry  or  Church  Yard  shall 
not  exceed  the  Perquisites  reserved  and  mentioned  in  the 
Grant  thereof  made  by  the  Mayor,  Aldermen,  and  Common- 
alty of  the  City  of  JYew-York,  for  the  use  of  Trinity  Church 
aforesaid  ;  And  in  Case  the  Church  Wardens  or  Vestrymen 
or  any  of  them*  happen  to  die  within  the  year  it  shall  be 
lawful  for  the  Inhabitants  aforesaid,  in  Communion  as  afore- 
said at  any  Time,  upon  such  Emergency  to  meet  at  the  said 
Church  upon  Notice  given  by  the  Rector,  to  elect  and  chuse 
others  so  qualified  as  aforesaid  in  their  Room;  who  shall 
have  full  Power  and  Authority  to  do,  execute  and  perform 
the  Offices  of  such  as  they  shall  be  so  chosen  to  succeed,  re- 
spectively, until  the  Time  of  next  annual  ElecUon.  And 
upon  the  Alteration  of  any  Church  Warden,  by  Death  or 
otherwise  the  preceding  Church  Warden  or  Wardens  of  the 
said  Church,  shall  deliver  over  to  their  Successors,  in  that 
Office  all  Deeds,  Charters,  Evidences,  Books,  Matters,  and 
things  whatsoever,  belonging  to  the  said  Church,  in  their 
Custody  by  Indentures  containing  an  Inventory  of  them,  in- 
terchangeably under  their  Hands,  which  Indentiires  shall  be 
exhibited  and  shewn  to  the  Vestry-men  at  first  Meeting,  next 
after  such  annual  Election,  or  other  alteration  happening. 

VII.  And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  Authority  afore- 
said, That  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  for  the  Rector  for  the 
Time  being,  of  the  said  Ciiurch  upon  avoidance  of  such  Offi- 
cers, to  nominate  and  appoint  a  Clerk,  Sexton,  or  Sextons 
for  the  said  Church  ;  and  that  the  Clerk,  Sexton,  or  Sextons 
of  the  said  Church  be,  and  continue  in  their  respective  Offi- 
ces during  their -natural  lives,  unless  they  voluntarily  surren- 
der, become  incapable  of  serving  by  sickness  or  other  infir- 
mity, or  misbehave  themselves,  in  which  case  it  shall  be  in 
the  Power  of  the  Rector  of  tha  said  (Church  for  the  Time 
being,  with  Advice  and  Consent  of  the  Church  Wardens,  or 


EXTRACT  FROM  CONSTITUTION  OF  1777. 


21 


one  of  them,  and  Vestry-men,  or  major  part  of  them  to 
xlisplace  or  remove  such  Officer  and  Officers  so  misbehaving 
themselves,  and  not  otherwise. 

VIII.  And  lastly,  bk  it  enacted  by  the  authority  afore- 
said, That  tbi-s  present  Act,  and  the  several  Powers,  Privi- 
leges and  Liberties  therein  and  thereby  granted  to  the  Rector 
and  Inhabitants  aforesaid,  in  Communion  as  aforesaid,  and 
their  Successors  forever  be,  and  shall  be  construed  and  under- 
stood most  favorably  for  the  Benefit  of  said  Church,  accord- 
ing to  the  true  Intent  and  Meaning  of  his  Excellency  the 
Governor,  and  Council  and  Assembly  aforesaid. 

IX.  Provided,  Nevertheless,  That  this  present  Act  of 
General  Assembly,  nor  anything  therein  contained,  shall  be 
construed  or  understood  to  extend  to  abridge  or  take  away 
the  Indulgtncy  or  Liberty  of  Conscience,  granted  or  allowed 
to  other  Protestant  Christians,  by  an  Act  of  Parliament,  made 
in  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  the  late  King  William  and 
Queen  Mary  of  blessed  memory,  entitled  An  Act  for  exempt- 
ing their  Majeslie's  Protestant  subjects  dissenting  from  the 
Church  cf  England,  from  the  penalty  of  certain  Laws  or  by 
any  other  Law  or  Statute  of  the  Realm  of  England  or  this 
plantation  ;  anything  in  this  present  Act  contained  or  miscon- 
strued to  the  contrary  thereof  in  any  ways  notwithstanding. 


EXTRACT  FROM  THE  STATE  CONSTITU- 
TION OF  1777. 

Section  36.  And  be  it  further  ordained,  That  all  grants  of 
land  within  this  State,  made  by  the  King  of  Britain,  or  per- 
sons acting  under  his  authority,  after  the  fourteenth  day  of 
October,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  seventy-five,  shall 
be  null  and  void  ;  but  that  nothing  in  this  Constitution  con- 
tained shall  be  construed  to  affect  any  grants  of  land  within 
this  State,  made  by  the  authority  of  the  said  King  or  his 
predecessors,  or  to  annul  any  charters  to  bodies  politic,  by 
him,  or  them,  or  any  of  them,  made  prior  to  that  day. 


3 


22 


ACT  OF  1784. 


ACT  OF  1784. 


Preamble 

reciliiig 

charter. 


Preamble 
reciting  act 
June  27, 
1704. 


Preamble- 


Reciting 
parts  of  the 
charter  in- 
consistent 
with  the  con- 
stitution. 

Preamble. 


Reciting 
other  parts 
of  the  char- 
ter and  laws 
against  the 
religious 
equnlity 
designed  by 
the  consti- 
tion. 


Part  of  the 
old  charter, 
and  law 
rtlaling  to 
the  church 
repealed. 


Jin  act  for  making  such  Alterations  in  the  Charter  of  the 
Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  as  to  render  it  more  con- 
formable to  the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

Passed  17th  April,  1784. 
(Taken  from  Vol.  1  of  Jones  and  Vai-ioU's  edition,  p.  128.) 

Whereas  by  letters  patent  under  the  great  seal  of  the  then 
colony,  and  now  State  of  New-York,  bearing  date  the  sixth 
day  of  May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  six  hun- 
dred and  ninety-seven,  many  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New-York,  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  were  erected 
into  a  corporation,  by  the  name  and  style  of  tlie  Rector  and 
Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New-York,  of  the  Protestant 
Church  of  England,  as  by  Law  established. 

And  whereas,  on  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  June,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  four,  the 
Legislature  of  the  then  colony,  and  now  State  aforesaid,  did 
pass  a  law,  entitled,  "An  Act  for  granting  sundry  Privileges 
"  and  Powers  to  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  City  of 
"  New- York,  in  Communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  as 
"  by  law  established." 

And  whereas  those  parts  of  the  said  charter  which  render 
necessary  the  induction  of  a  rector  to  the  said  church  by  the 
governor,  according  to  such  instructions  as  he  shall  from 
time  to  time  receive  from  his  Britannic  majesty,  and  such 
other  parts  of  the  said  charter  and  law  as  admit  and  acknow- 
ledge that  rights  exist  in  the  bishop  of  London,  in  and  over 
the  said  church,  are  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  and  letter  of 
the  constitution  of  this  state. 

And  whereas  certain  other  parts  of  the  said  charter  and 
law,  and  of  a  certain  other  law  passed  the  twenty-second  day 
of  September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  six  hun- 
dred and  ninety-three,  by  the  Legislature  of  the  then  colony 
aforesaid,  entitled,  "  An  Act  for  settling  a  Ministry,  and 
"  raising  a  Maintainance  for  them  in  the  City  of  New-York, 
"  and  County  of  Richmond,  Westchester,  and  Queen's 
"  County,"  are  contradictory  to  that  equality  of  religious 
rights  which  is  designed  to  be  established  by  the  constitution 
of  this  state  : 

L  Be  it  therefore  enacted  by  the  people  of  the  state  of 
JYew-York,  represented  in  Senate  and  Assembly,  and  it  is 
hereby  enacted  by  the  authority  of  the  same,  that  so  much  of 
the  charter  to  the  said  body  corporate  above  particularly 
mentioned,  and  so  much  of  the  said  law  first  above  particu- 
larly mentioned,  as  relate  to  the  induction  of  the  rector  by 
the  governor,  to  the  powers  or  authority  of  the  bishop  of 


ACT  OF  1784. 


23 


London,  in  and  over  the  said  corporation,  and  to  the  collect- 
ing and  levying  a  sum  of  money  upon  the  city  of  New-York, 
for  the  use  of  the  rector  or  incumbent  in  the  said  law  men- 
tioned, be,  and  they  are  hereby  repealed  and  annulled  ;  and  Jj^^^^^g 
that  nothing  in  this  law,  nor  no  non-user,  or  mis-user,  between  served,  not- 
the  nineteenth  day  of  April,  one  thousand  sev^n  hundred  and  Tonus'liror"^ 
seventy-five,  and  the  passing  of  this  law,  shall  be  in  any  wise  ""suser. 
construed  to  annul,  injure,  repeal,  or  make  void  the  said 
charter,  or  the  said  law  first  above  particularly  mentioned, 
where  the  same  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  constitution  of 
this  state. 

II.  Jlnd  he  it  further  enacted^  and  it  is  hereby  enacted  by  church-war- 
the  authority  aforesaid,  that  the  church-wardens  and  vestry-  frymtJl'^to*^' 
men  of  the  said  corporation,  or  a  majority  of  them,  be  vested  ^uctTrecwr 
with  full  powers  to  call  and  induct  a  rector  to  the  said 
church,  so  often  as  there  shall  be  any  vacancy  therein. 

Jlnd  ivhereas  doubts  have  arisen  on  those  parts  of  the  said  Preamble, 
charter  and  law  first  above  mentioned,  which  speak  of  inhabi- 
tants in  communion  of  the  said  church  of  England ;  for  re- 
moval whereof ; 

III.  Be  it  further  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that  Description 
all  persons  professing  themselves  members  of  the  Episcopal  whJrX"ibe 
Church,  who  shall  either  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  f"e"charier^' 
seat  in  the  said  church,  and  shall  regularly  pay  to  the  sup-  nghu,  ic. 
port  of  the  said  church,  and  such  others  as  shall  in  the  said 
church  partake  of  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 

at  least  once  in  every  year,  being  inhabitents  of  the  city  and 
county  of  New-York,  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  rights,  pri- 
vileges, benefits  and  emoluments,  which  in  and  by  the  said 
charter  and  law  first  above  mentioned,  are  designed  to  be 
secured  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  in  com- 
munion of  the  Church  of  England. 

And  whereas  by  the  events  of  war,  and  in  consequence  of  Preamble, 
the  capture  of  the  city  of  New-York  by  the  troops  of  his 
Britannic  majesty,  many  of  the  well-affected  inhabitants  of  describing 
the  said  city,  who  by  the  said  charter  and  law  were  entitled  I^J)t°vo°e"for 
to  vote  for  members  of  the  said  corporation,  were  prevented  Ihe'^or^ra''- 
from  the  due  exercise  of  their  rights,  and  many  others  who 
remained  in  this  city,  were  deteried  from  voting  by  well- 
grounded  apprehensions  of  the  forces  of  his  Britannic  ma- 
jesty, then  in  possession  of  the  said  city  ;  by  reason  whereof 
no  elections  were  held,  but  under  the  influence  of  the 
government  of  Groat  Britain,  then  at  open  war  with  this 
state  ; 

And  whereas  the  council  appointed  by  the  act  of  the  Le-  Preamble- 
gislature,  entitled,  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  temporary 
"  government  of  the  southern  parts  of  this  state,  whenever  ?e1ermma^* 
"the  enemy  shall  abandon  or  shall  be  dispossessed  of  the  [J^™  "^'^^Jj'jj, 
"  same,  and  until  the  Legislature  can  be  convened,"  passed  respecting 
the  twenly-third  of  October,  one  thousand  seven  hundred 


24 


ACT  OF  1784. 


in  lime 
persons. 


and  seventy-nine,  upon  the  petition  of  sundry  persons,  styl- 
ing themselves  members  of  the  said  church ;  and  after  a  lull 
hearing  of  certain  other  persons,  claiming  to  be  the  church- 
wardens and  vestrymen  of  the  said  church,  reciting  that 
there  was,  in  the  opinion  of  the  council,  reason  to  believe, 
that  the  dissensions  respecting  the  said  church  mighi  materi- 
ally endanger  the  peace  of  the  said  city,  did,  in  effect,  deter- 
mine the  said  places  of  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  to  be 
vacant;  and  by  their  ordinance,  dated  the  twelfth  day  of 
January,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-four,  did 
And  estate  of  vest  the  estate,  real  and  personal,  of  the  said  corporation,  in 
lion^esied  James  Duanc,  Francis  Lewis,  Lewis  Morris,  Isaac  Sears, 
William  Duer,  Daniel  Dunscomb,  Anthony  Lispenard,  John 
Rutherford,  and  William  Bedlow,  to  be  retained  and  kept  by 
them,  or  any  five  of  them,  until  such  time  as  further  legal 
provision  should  be  made  in  the  premises  ; 
Preamble.  whereas  it  appears,  that  the  following  persons  have 

been  nominated  and  chosen,  by  a  very  respectable  number  of 
the  members  of  the  said  corporation  and  society,  as  church- 
wardens and  vestrymen,  and  by  their  humble  petition  have 
prayed  that  the  said  persons  may  be  appointed  as  such. 
Present         IV.  Be  it  therefore  further  enacted,  and  it  is  hereby  enacted 
densand™'  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that  James  Duane  and  Robert  R. 
appo/iued"  Livingston  be  the  present  church-wardens  of  the  said  corpo- 
ration ;  and  that  Anthony  Griffiths,  Hercules  Mulligan,  Mari- 
nus  Willet,  John  Stevens,  Robert  Troup,  Thomas  Tucker, 
Joshua  Sands,  Richard  Morris,  Francis  Lewis,  Lewis  Morris, 
Isaac  Sears,  Daniel  Dunscomb,  William  Bedlow,  William 
Duer,  John  Rutherford,  Anthony  Lispenard,  Thomas  Gren- 
nell,  William  Mercier,  Thomas  Tillotson,  and  Christopher 
Their  con-  Miller,  be  the  vestrymen  of  the  said  corporation  ;  the  said 
office?'^^     church-wardens  and  vestrymen  to  hold  their  places  until  the 
first  usual  day  of  election  for  church-wardens  and  vestrymen, 
which  shall  be  held  after  Easter  Sunday,  which  will  be  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty- 
five  ;  and  that  in  the  mean  time  in  case  of  any  vacancy  by 
vacancin    J^^'h  or  resignation  of  the  rector,  or  either  of  the  church- 
how  to  be  wardens  or  vestrymen,  such  vacancy  to  be  filled  up  by  the 
remaining  church-wardens  and  vestrymen,  m  such  manner  as 
is  prescribed  in  and  by  the  charter  and  law  constituting  the 
said  corporation  as  aforesaid. 

V.  Provided  nevertheless,  and  be  it  further  enacted,  by  the 
"0^*0.     authority  aforesaid,  that  nothing  in  this  act  contained,  shall 
.■having  the  ^6  coustrued,  deemed,  or  taken  to  prejudice  or  injure  the 
if^*"  "ciilim*  '"'g^^  or  title  of  any  person  or  persons  whatsoever,  to  any  of 
anu.         the  lands  or  tenements  occupied  or  claimed  by  the  corpora- 
tion aforesaid' 

And  in  order  fully  to  carry  into  full  effect  those  parts  of 
the  constitution  of  this  state,  which  declare  that  the  free 
exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  profession  and  worship, 


ACT  OF  1784. 


25 


without  discrimination  or  preference,  shall  for  ever  hereafter 
be  allowed  within  this  state  to  all  mankind,  and  that  all  acts 
of  the  Legislature  of  this  state  while  a  colony,  and  all  parts 
thereof  which  may  be  construed  to  establish  or  maintain  any 
particular  denomination  of  christians,  or  their  ministers,  be 
abrogated  and  rejected  as  repugnant  to  the  said  constitu- 
tion. 

And  in  order  to  remove  all  doubts  which  may  arise  in  the  Preamble, 
minds  of  any  persons  with  respect  to  the  continuance,  force, 
and  eflfect  of  a  certain  act  of  the  Le^islatuie  of  this  state  cenainicts. 
while  a  colony,  passed  on  the  twenty-second  day  of  Septem- 
ber, one  thousand  six  hundred  and  ninety-three,  entitled, 
"  An  Act  for  settling  a  Ministry,  and  raising  a  Maintenance 
"  for  them  in  the  City  of  New  York,  County  of  Richmond, 
"  Westchester,  and  Queen's  County ;"  and  also  of  one 
other  act,  passed  on  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  June,  one 
thousand  seven  hundred  and  four,  entitled,  "  An  Act  for 
"granting  sundry  Privileges  and  Powers  to  the  Rector  and 
"  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New- York,  of  the  Communion 
"  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  Law  established  ;"  and 
also  of  another  act,  passed  on  the  fourth  day  of  August,  one 
thousand  seven  hundred  and  five,  entitled,  "An  Act  for  the 
"  better  explaining  and  more  etFectually  putting  in  Execution  implying  a 
"  an  Act  of  General  Assembly,  entitled,  An  Act  for  settlinsr  pre-emi- 

.  >  .       n^nc6  ot  the 

"  a  Ministry,  and  raising  a  Maintenance  for  them  in  the  City  church  of 
"  of  New-York,  County  of  Richmond,  Westchester,  and  aboveolher, 
"Queen's  County;"  and  also  of  one  other  act,  passed  on 
the  twenty-seventh  day  of  July,  one  thousand  seven  hundred 
and  twenty-one,  entitled,  "  An  Act  for  the  more  equal  and 
"  impartial  assessing  the  Minister  and  Poor's  Tax,  to  be 
"  raised  within  the  City  and  County  of  New-York,  Queen's 
"  County,  W^estchester  County,  and  the  County  of  Rich- 
''mond;"  and  also  of  one  other  act,  passed  the  twenty-first 
day  of  September,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  forty- 
four,  entitled,  "  An  Act  to  alter  the  Time  ol  electing  Ves- 
"  trymen  and  Church-wardens  in  Richmond  County  ;"  and 
also  certain  parts  of  one  other  act,  passed  the  twenty-ninth 
day  of  November,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  forty- 
five,  entitled,  "  An  Act  to  enable  the  Inhabitants  of  the  City 
"  of  New-York,  to  choose  annually  two  Vestrymen  for  each 
"  respective  Ward  within  the  said  City,"  which  do  grant  cer- 
tain Immunities,  Emoluments,  and  Privileges  to  the  Episco- 
pal Church,  or  that  mode  of  Religious  Worship,  commonly 
called  the  Church  of  England,  in  the  City  and  County  of 
New-York,  and  the  Counties  of  Richmond,  Queen's  and 
Westchester,  and  do  establish  and  maintain  the  Ministers  of 
that  Denomination  within  the  said  Counties  ;  and  do  also 
declare  or  imply  a  pre-eminence  or  distinction  of  the  said 
Episcopal  Church,  or  Church  of  England,  over  all  other 
churches  and  other  religious  denominations. 


26 


ACT  OF  1784. 


VI.  Be  it  therefore  further  enacted  by  the  authority  afore- 
said, that  the  said  acts  for  settling  the  ministry,  and  raising  a 
maintenance  for  them  in  the  city  of  New  York,  counties  of 
Richmond,  Westchester,  and  Queen's  county  ;  for  granting 
Such  acts  sundry  privileges  and  powers  to  the  rector  and  inhabitants  of 
repealed,  the  city  of  JYew-York,  of  the  communion  of  the  Church  of 
England,  as  by  law  established  ;  for  the  better  explaining  and 
more  effectually  putting  in  execution  an  act  of  the  General 
Assembly,  entitled,  An  Act  for  the  settling  the  Ministry 
and  raising  a  Maintenance  for  them  in  the  city  of  New- 
York,  County  of  Richmond,  Westchester,  and  Queen's 
County  ;  for  the  more  equal  and  impartial  assessing  the 
Minister  and  Poor's  Tax,  to  be  raised  in  the  City  and 
County  of  New- York,  Queen's  County,  Westchester  Coun- 
ty, and  the  county  of  Richmond  ;  for  altering  the  Time 
of  electing  Vestrymen  and  Church-wardens  in  Richmond 
County  ;  and  also  such  certain  parts  of  the  act  for  en- 
abling the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  to  choose 
annually  two  vestrymen  for  each  respective  ward  within  the 
the  said  city,  as  do  imply  such  pre-eminence  and  distinc- 
tion, be,  and  are  hereby  declared  to  be  fully  and  absolutely 
abrogated,  abolished,  annulled,  repealed,  and  made  void,  as 
inconsistent  with,  and  repugnant  to  the  constitution  of  this 
state  :  And  it  is  hereby  further  declared,  that  nothing  in  this 
act  contained  shall  in  any  wise  be  construed  or  understood  to 
give  any  kind  of  pre-eminence  or  distinction  to  the  Episco- 
pal mode  of  religious  worship  within  this  state  ;  but  that  an 
fwern"reii-  uuivcrsal  equality  between  every  religious  denomination,  ac- 

gious  deno- cording  to  the  true  spirit  of  the  constitution,  towards  each 
mmatioDS.      ,1111,  •  1 

other,  shall  for  ever  prevail. 

confirmntinn     VII.  Jlnd  bc  it  furtlicr  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid, 

of  powers  o(        nothiug  iu  this  act  contained,  shall  be  deemed,  esteemed, 

corporalioii.       i-     1       ,     °  1  r  •  1 

adjudged,  or  construed,  to  enlarge  or  connrm  any  right, 
power,  or  authority,  but  such  as  the  said  corporation  legally 
had,  held,  and  enjoyed  on  the  nineteenth  day  of  April,  one 
thousand  seven  hundred  and  seventy-five,  and  such  other 
powers,  rights  and  authorities  as  arc  expressly  given  by  this 
act. 


ACT  OF  1788. 


27 


ACT  OF  1788. 

[Taken  from  vol.  2  of  Jones  and  Varick's  edition,  p.  346.] 

An  Act  to  enable  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  the 
city  of  JVew-York  to  assume  the  name  therein  mentioned. 

Passed  10th  March,  1788. 

Whereas  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of  PreamMe 
New-York,  were  by  an  act  of  the  Legislature  of  the  late  Inh  jlfne','^ 
Colony  of  New- York,  passed  the  twenty-seventh  day  June, 
in  the  year  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  four,  enabled  to 
sue  and  be  sued,  plead  and  be  impleaded,  answer  and  be  an- 
swered unto,  defend  and  be  defended,  by  the  name  of  the 
Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York,  in  commu- 
nion of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  law  established.  And 
whereas,  the  said  act  was  repealed  by  the  Legislature  of  tliis  And  its  re- 
State,  on  the  seventeenth  day  of  April,  in  the  year  one  thou- 
sand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-four,  but  the  said  Corporation 
have  continued  to  use  the  name  therein  specified,  and  by  their 
humble  Petition  to  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  have  prayed 
that  they  may  be  enabled  to  assume  and  use  the  name  of 
"The  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  in 
communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State 
of  New- York  ;"  therefore 

Be  it  enacted,  by  the  people  of  the  State  of  JS^ew-York,  re- 
presented in  Senate  and  Assembly,  and  it  is  hereby  enacted 
by  the  authority  of  the  same.  That  the  said  corporation  shall 
and  may,  from  and  immediately  after  the  passing  of  this  act,  ^f^'Iorpora- 
take  and  use  the  name  of"  the  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the 
city  of  New-York  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  State  of  New- York,"  and  by  the  same  name 
shall  be  capable  to  sue  and  be  sued,  pie.  d  and  be  pleaded, 
answer  and  be  answered  unto,  defend  and  be  defended,  and 
that  all  grants,  deeds,  and  conveyances,  made  to  or  by  the 
said  corporation,  between  the  said  seventeenth  day  of  April, 
in  the  year  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-four,  anil  TiUes  con- 
the  passing  of  this  act,  wherein  they  are  named  or  menticned  6™*=")- 
by  the  name  of  the  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- 
York  in  Communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  law 
established,  or  any  other  name  or  names,  shall  be  good,  valid, 
and  effectual  in  the  Law,  in  like  manner  as  they  would  have 
been  .if  the  said  act  passed  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  June,  in 
the  year  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  four,  had  never  been 
repealed,  or  as  they  would  respectively  have  been  if  the  said 
corporation  had  been  properly  named  in  such  grants,  deeds, 
or  conveyances. 


PETITION  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH  IN  1813. 


PETITION  OF  CORPORATION  OF  TRINITY 
CHURCH, 

APPLYING  FOR  THE  ACT  OF  25th  JANUARY,  1814. 

To  the  Ho7wrable  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  JVew- 
York  : 

The  Petition  of  the  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City 
of  New-York  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  State  of  New- York  : 
Respectfully  showeth  : 

That  so  long  ago  as  in  the  year  one  thousand  six  hun- 
dred and  ninety-seven,  your  Petitioners  were  incorporated 
by  letters  patent  under  the  great  seal  of  the  colony  of  New- 
York,  and  have  ever  since  continued  to  be  a  body  politic 
and  corporate,  by  virtue  of  their  said  charter. 

That  at  the  time  of  granting  the  same,  it  was  contem- 
plated that  Trinity  Church  therein  mentioned,  should  be 
the  sole  and  only  parish  church  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal denomination,  in  the  said  city,  and  that  in  fact  it  con- 
tinued to  be  so  until  the  Revolution,  by  which  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  United  States  was  obtained,  and  for  a  num- 
ber of  years  after  that  memorable  epoch. 

That  soon  after  the  revolution  above  mentioned,  an  act 
of  the  Legislature  passed  for  making  such  alterations  in  the 
charter  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  as  to  render 
it  more  conformable  to  the  constitution  of  the  State  :  by 
one  clause  whereof  all  the  rights,  privileges,  benefits  and 
emoluments  which  in  and  by  the  said  charter  were  designed 
to  be  secured  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New- York 
in  communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  were  conferred 
upon  all  persons  professing  themselves  members  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  who  should  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a 
pew  or  seat  in  the  said  Church,  and  should  regularly  pay 
to  the  support  of  the  said  Church,  and  such  others  as 
should  in  the  said  church  partake  of  the  holy  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  at  least  once  in  every  year,  being  inha- 
bitants of  the  said  city. 

That  since  the  passing  of  the  act  [above  'referred  to,  the 
pew  holders  of  Trinity  Church  and  of  the  churches  or 


•  The  determination  to  apply  to  the  Legislature  appears  upbn  the 
minutes  of  the  Vestry  of  the  4tli  of  January,  1813,  in  the  following  form  : 

"  Resolved,  That  Richard  Harrison,  David  M.  Clarkson,  Thomas  Bar- 
"  row,  Robert  Troup,  Jacob  LeRoy,  Peter  Augustus  Jay,  and  Thomas  L. 
"  Ogden  be  a  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church,  with  full  power  to 
"  make  such  application  to  the  Legislature  at  its  ensuing  session,  relative 
"  to  the  affairs  of  this  Corporation,  as  the  said  Committee  shall  judge  to 
''  be  proper." 


PETITION  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH  IN  l8l3. 


chapels  belonging  to  the  said  corporation,  and  the  regular 
communicants  therein,  have  been  the  only  persons  admitted 
to  vote  at  elections  for  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  of 
the  said  corporation  according  to  the  just  and  fair  construc- 
tion contemporaneously  and  ever  since  given  to  the  said 
act. 

Your  Petitioners  beg  leave  further  to  show,  that  in  con* 
sequence  of  the  rapid  and  unexampled  increase  and  pros- 
perity of  our  country  since  the  said  revolution,  and  the  cor- 
responding growth  and  population  of  the  City  of  New- 
York,  Trinity  Church,  aforesaid,  with  the  churches  and 
chapels  belonging  to  its  corporation,  became  insufficient  for 
the  accommodation  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  city 
who  professed  themselves  members  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  or  wished  to  become  so,  on  which  account, 
and  for  a  variety  of  other  reasons  not  necessary  to  be  sug- 
gested, numerous  persons  of  this  description  have  been  in- 
duced from  time  to  time,  to  form  themselves  into  distinct 
corporations,  each  having  its  own  peculiar  endowments  and 
places  of  worship,  with  rectors  and  other  officers  of  their 
own  choice,  totally  independent  of  any  control  or  inter- 
ference of  your  Petitioners. 

That  a  number  of  such  religious  corporations  have  ac- 
cordingly been  organized  as  the  law  directs,  some  with  and 
some  without  the  concurrence  of  your  petitioners  ;  to  all 
which  your  Petitioners  have  made  liberal  donations,  and 
with  whose  internal  concerns  your  Petitioners  or  any  of 
the  members  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  as  such, 
do  not  claim  any  right  to  intermeddle  ;  nor  do  the  said 
corporation  possess  or  claim  any  right  for  themselves  or 
their  members  to  vote  in  the  elections,  or  regulate  the 
affairs  of  Trinity  Church. 

Nevertheless,  a  few  individuals  belonging  to  such  sepa- 
rate corporations,  have  recently  pretended  to  claim  that 
right,  and  at  the  last  annual  election  of  church-wardens  and 
vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  held  in  the  month  of  March, 
in  the  year  1312,  two  or  three  persons  being  members  of 
incorporated  churches,  separate  and  distinct  from  your  Pe- 
titioners, tendered  themselves  as  voters  ;  but  their  voles 
under  an  ordinance  previously  passed  by  your  Petitioners, 
were  rejected,  and  no  measures  have  been  yet  taken  to  en- 
force or  establish  the  right  so  claimed. 

It  must  be  obvious,  however,  that  attempts  of  this  na» 
ture  cannot  fail  to  produce  strife  and  litigation,  and  to  fos- 
ter and  keep  alive  pretensions  of  the  most  unreasonable  na- 
ture and  of  the  most  mischievous  tendency. 

Your  Petitioners  are,  moreover,  sensible  that  since  the 
formation  of  such  distinct  corporations,  the  corporate  name 
by  which  your  Petitioners  are  designated  has  become  inap- 
plicable, and  ought  to  be  changed  ;  as  they  do  not  compre- 

4 


PETITION  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH  IN  1813 


hend  in  their  body  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- 
York  who  now  profess  to  be  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  ;  and  your  petitioners  are  further  convinced  that  it  has 
become  essential  to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  said  church, 
that  all  doubts  respecting  the  persons  entitled  to  vote  for 
church-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  which 
may  exist  or  arise  in  consequence  of  the  said  separate  in- 
corporations, should  be  finally  obviated  and  settled. 

Your  Petitioners  beg  |leave  further  to  represent,  that  the 
law  which  requires  religious  corporations  in  New-York, 
Albany,  and  Schenectady,  to  exhibit  an  inventory  and  ac- 
count of  their  estates  and  revenues  at  certain  periods,  is 
attended  with  considerable  expense  and  trouble,  without 
producing  any  valuable  effects  ;  that  after  such  inventory 
and  account  has  once  been  exhibited  it  cannot  be  useful  to 
exhibit  it  again,  unless  the  corporation  should  acquire 
further  estates ;  and  that  as  far  as  the  corporation  of  Tri- 
nity Church  is  concerned,  they  have  hitherto  complied  with 
the  law,  and  hold  no  property  (their  communion  plate  and 
church  furniture  excepted)  other  than  what  they  held  and 
were  possessed  of  long  before  the  said  revolution,  and  are 
legally  entitled  to  hold  by  the  charters  and  grants  of  the 
ancient  government,  confirmed  and  established  by  the  Le- 
gislature of  the  State ;  though  your  Petitioners  have  great- 
ly diminished  that  property  by  grants  and  donations  to 
Columbia  College,  to  a  free  School  which  the  Legislature 
has  incorporated,  to  a  Society  formed  for  the  promotion  of 
religion  and  learning,  and  to  many  churches  and  religious 
societies,  not  only  in  the  city  of  New-York  but  elsewhere 
in  differents  parts  of  the  State. 

Your  Petitioners  therefore  pray,  that  your  Honorable 
Body  will  pass  an  Act  for  altering  the  name  of  their  incor- 
poration ;  and  also  to  obviate  and  settle  the  questions  that 
might  arise  in  consequence  of  incorporating  other  Episco- 
pal congregations  in  the  city  of  New-York  ;  and  to  do 
away  the  necessity  of  such  inventory  and  account  being 
exhibited  more  than  once,  unless  upon  the  acquisition  of 
additional  property,  by  religious  corporations. 

And  your  Petitioners  will  ever  pray,  &c. 

By  order  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  the 
city  of  New-York. 

[l.  s.]  T.  L,  Ogden,  Clerk. 


ACT  OF  1814. 


ACT  OF  1814. 

(Taken  from  Session  Laws  of  1814  :  p.  5.) 

Jtn  act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  Corpcration  of  Trinity 
Church,  in  JVeto-  York,  and  for  other  purposes. 

Passed  January  25th,  1814. 

Whereas,  at  the  time  of  passing  the  act,  entitled,  "An^^^i^,, 
*'  Act  for  making  such  alterations  in  the  Charter  of  the  Cor- 
"  poration  of  Trinity  Church,  as  to  render  it  more  conforma- 

ble  to  the  Constitution  of  the  State,"  and  for  some  years 
afterwards,  the  said  corporation,  although  possessing  several 
places  of  public  worship  besides  Trinity  Church,  was  the 
only  incorporated  religious  society  in  the  city  of  New-York 
in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this 
State  ;  but  several  other  religious  societies,  of  the  same  de- 
nomination, have  since  been  formed  in  the  said  city,  and 
duly  incorporated.  And  whereas,  by  an  act  passed  the 
tenth  day  of  March,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1788,  the  said 
corporation  of  Trinity  Church  was  enabled  to  take  and  use 
the  name  of  "  The  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of 
*'  New-York  in  Communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 

Church  in  the  State  of  New- York  ;  "  which  name  the  said 
corporation,  by  their  petition  to  the  Legislature,  pray  may  be 
altered,  as  having  now  become  improper  ;  and  that  such  fur- 
ther legislative  provisions  may  be  made  as  to  remove  all 
doubts  respecting  their  charter  rights,  occasioned  by  the  for- 
mation of  other  religious  societies  in  the  said  city  of  New- 
York.  Therefore 

I.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  People  of  tho  State  of  JVew-ForA;, 
represented  in  Senate  and  Assembly,  That  from  and  after  the 
passing  of  this  act,  the  said  corporation  of  Trinity  Church, 
instead  of  their  present  name,  shall  take  and  use  the  name  of  Corporaw 

The  Rector,  Church-Wardens,  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity 
Church,  in  the  city  of  New- York." 

IL  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  all  male  persons  of 
full  age,  who,  for  the  space  of  one  year  preceding  any  elec-  ^-^^na 
tion,  shall  have  been  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  qualified  lo 
Church  aforesaid,  or  of  any  of  the  chapels  belonging  to  the 
same,  and  forming  part  of  the  same  religious  corporation, 
and  who  shall  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in  Trinity 
Church,  or  in  any  of  the  said  chapels,  or  have  partaken  of 
the  holy  communion  therein  within  the  said  year,  and  no 
other  persons,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  annual  elections 
for  the  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  the  said  corpora- 
tion. 

III.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  all  grants  and  con- 
veyances heretofore  made,  or  that  hereafter  may  be  made  by  corporation 


ACT  OF  1814. 


S?o"'oth.      ^^^^  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  of  any  of  their  lands, 

er  corpora-  tenements,  and  hereditaments,  to  any  other  religious  society, 
now  incorporated,  or  that  may  hereafter  be  duly  incorporated, 
shall  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  declared  to  be  valid  and 

Pioviso  eflfectual.  according  to  the  tenor  thereof  ;  pro  vided  the  an- 
nual value  of  such  lands,  tenements,  and  hereditaments,  at 
the  time  of  such  grant  or  conveyance,  together  with  the 
other  estate  real  and  personal  of  such  other  religious  corpo- 
rations, shall  not  exceed  the  annual  sum  which  they  are  or 
may  be  respectively  entitled  to  hold. 

IV.  ^nd  whereas  Saint  George's  Church,  in  the  city  of 

ReciiaJ.  New-York,  formerly  called  Saint  George's  Chapel  was  one 
of  the  chapels  heretofore  belonging  to  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  Church,  and  the  pew-holders  in  the  said  chapel,  and 
others  qualified  according  to  the  charter  of  Trinity  Church, 
and  the  laws  of  the  State,  were  corporators  of  the  said  cor- 
poration of  Trinity  Church.  And  whereas,  by  mutual  agree- 
ment and  consent,  the  said  chapel,  called  Saint  George's 
Chapel,  with  such  of  the  corporators  of  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  Church  as  belonged  thereto,  or  statedly  worshipped 
in  the  said  chapel,  have  been  set  off,  and  organized  as  a  dis- 
tinct religious  society,  and  have  incorporated  themselves  as 
such,  under  the  name  of  the  Rector,  Church-Wardens,  and 
Vestrymen  of  St.  George's  Church  in  the  city  of  New-York  : 
and  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  have  granted  to,  or 
vested  in  the  said  newly  incorporated  n^ligious  society,  the 
exclusive  right  to  the  said  chapel,  with  the  appurtenances,  and 
which  are  now  enjoyed  accordingly  :  but  doubts  are  entertain- 
ed as  to  the  legal  validity  of  the  said  transaction  ;  therefore, 

IV.  Be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  separation  of  St. 
Chtuch^de!  George's  Chapel,  in  the  city  of  New-York,  from  the  corpo- 
par"e*  ration  of  Trinity  Church,  shall  be,  and  hereby  is  confirmed  : 
chureh  from  and  that  the  said  church  now  called  St.  George's  Church- 
Church.      shall  not  at  any  time  hereafter  be  held  or  taken  to  be 

a  church  or  chapel  belonging  to  Trinity  Church,  so  as  to 
qualify  any  of  the  congregation  thereof  to  vote  at  the  elec- 
tions of  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church 
above  mentioned.    And  the  said  religious  society  called  the 
rector,  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Saint  George's 
Church,  in  the  city  of  New-York,  shall  have  a  right  to  all 
And  to  OS       temporalities  derived  from  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
se"ss  iu^se-  Church  as  aforesaid,  and  may  enjoy  the  same  in  as  full  and 
taie.'*   *°"  beneficial   manner  as  any  such  religious  corporation  can 
hold  and  enjoy  its  temporalities,  howsoever  the  same  may  be 
acquired. 

V.  Jlnd  be  it  further  enacted,  That  when,  and  as  often  as 
Corporation  shall  sccm  expedient  to  the  said  rector,  church-wardens, 
""rt^'other  '^"'^  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New- York, 
cKrches,    to  divide  the  congregation  or  corporators  belonging  to  the 

said  corporation,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  them  so  to  do,  by  set- 


ACT  OF  1814. 


33 


ting  apart,  as  a  separate  church,  any  of  the  churches  or  cha- 
pels that  may  belong  to  and  form  part  of  the  said  corpora- 
tion, provided  the  same  be  done  with  the  assent  of  a  majority  pronso. 
of  the  persons  entitled  to  vote  as  aforesaid,  who  shall  belong 
to  such  church  or  chapel  intended  to  be  set  apart,  and  who 
shall  attend  a  meeting  to  consider  of  such  separation  after  at 
least  ten  days' notice  previously  given  for  that  purpose  in  the 
said  church  or  chapel,  during  or  immediately  after  divine  ser- 
vice ;  and  such  separation  so  assented  to,  shall  take  effect 
according  to  the  terms  agreed  upon  between  the  parties  ;  and 
the  members  of  the  congregation  of  such  church  or  chapel 
so  separated,  shall  immediately  thereafter  cease  to  be  mem- 
bers of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  above  mentioned, 
and  may  proceed  to  incorporate  themselves  according  to  law 
as  a  separate  congregation  of  the  said  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  ;  and  being  so  incorporated,  may  receive  from  the 
said  corporation  of  the  Trinity  Church,  any  grant,  convey- 
ance, or  gift  of  any  chapel  or  other  real  or  personal  estate 
for  its  separate  use,  and  may  hold  and  enjoy  the  same  accord- 
ingly, as  fully  and  beneficially  as  any  such  religious  corpora- 
tion can  hold  and  enjoy  its  temporalities,  howsoever  the  same 
may  be  acquired. 

VI.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  every  case  where  no  religious 
a  church  or  religious  society  which  has  been,  or  may  be  duly  '"u'^J^to gig 
incorporated,  shall  have  exhibited  such  account  and  inventory  an  inventory 
as  is  specified  in  the  ninth*  section  of  the  act  entitled,  "An  acquire' ad'^ 
Act  to  provide  for  the  incorporation  of  religious  societies,"  per'ty'"'' 
it  shall  not  be  necessary  for  such  church  or  society  again  to 
exhibit  any  account  and  inventory,  unless  the  said  church  or 
society,  subsequently  to  such  exhibition,  shall  have  purchased 
or  acquired  any  lands,  tenements,  or  hereditaments  within 
this  state,  any  act,  law  or  usage  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing :  Provided  always,  that  nothing  in  this  act  con- 
tained shall  be  construed  to  affect,  or  defeat  the  right  of  any 
person  or  persons,  or  of  any  body  corporate,  to  the  estate, 
real  or  personal,  now  held,  occupied,  or  enjoyed  by  the  cor- 
poration of  Trinity  Church. 


[•  The  tenth  section  of  the  law  as  revised  and  re-enacted  in  1813.] 


CHANCELLOR  LANSING'S  OBJECTIONS. 


Chancellor  Lansing^ s  Objections,  and  the  vote  of  the 
Council  of  Revision  thereon. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Council  of  Revision  at  the  Council 
Chamber  in  the  Capitol,  the  25th  clay  of  January,  1814, 
Present, 

His  Excellency,  Daniel  D.  Tompkins,  President. 

Mr.  Chancellor  Lansing, 
Mr.  Chief  Justice  Kent, 
The  Honorable  {  Mr.  Justice  Van  Ness, 
Mr.  Justice  Spencer, 
\  Mr.  Justice  Yates. 
The  following  objections  having  been  reported  by  his 
Honor  the  Chancellor,  at  the  last  sessian,  to  the  bill  entitled, 
"  An  Act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity 
Church  in  New-York,  and  for  other  purposes,"  as  improper 
to  become  a  law  of  this  State,  viz  : 

"  1.  Because  if  the  members  of  the  several  incorporated 
societies  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
of  this  State,  formed  in  the  city  of  New-York  after  the  pas- 
sing of  the  act  entitled, '  An  Act  for  making  such  alterations 
in  the  charter  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  as  to 
render  it  more  conformable  to  the  Constitution  of  this  State," 
have  a  right  to  vote  at  the  annual  elections  for  the  church- 
wardens and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  though  not  hav- 
ing been  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  Church 
within  one  year  preceding  any  such  election,  or  any  of  the 
Chapels  belonging  to  the  same  ;  and  forming  part  of  the 
same  religious  corporation,  and  holding,  occupying,  or  enjoy- 
ing a  pew  in  the  said  Trinity  Church,  or  any  of  the  Chapels 
thereof,  or  not  having  partaken  of  the  holy  communion 
therein,  within  such  year,  in  consequence  of  the  rights  and 
privileges  vested  in  them  by  the  laws  of  this  State  and  the 
incorporation  of  Trinity  Church,  the  limitation  of  the  right 
of  election  provided  by  the  bill  may  divest  or  impair  such 
right.  And  if  any  doubts  exist  respecting  such  right  of  suf- 
frage, it  is  consistent  with  the  salutary  principles  of  the  con- 
stitution of  this  State  to  refer  them  to  judicial  cognizance  as 
the  appropriate  and  legitimate  resort  of  adverse  claimants  in 
controverted  cases  of  that  description.  This  principle  has 
been  heretofore  recognized  by  the  Council  in  an  analogous 
case,  and  which  received  the  sanction  of  the  honorable  the 
Assembly  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote,  as  will  appear  by  a 
reference  to  their  Journals  of  the  7th  of  February,  1810. 

"  2.  Because  the  Charter  being  a  private  grant,  and  it  not 
appearing  by  recitals  or  otherwise,  what  are  the  existing 
doubts  respecting  the  rights  and  privileges  thereby  given, 
the  Council  are  deprived  of  ihe  means  of  judging  whether 
any  vested  corporate  rights  are  not  violated  by  the  restric- 
tions and  provisions  contained  in  this  bill. 


CHANCELLOR  LANSING'S  OBJECTIONS. 


"  3.  Because  the  saving  contained  in  the  proviso  to  the 
last  section  of  the  bill  '  of  the  right  of  any  person  or  persons, 
or  of  any  body  corporate  to  the  estate,  real  or  personal,  now 
held,  occupied,  or  enjoyed  by  the  Corporation  of  Trinity 
Church,'  is  nugatory,  inasmuch  as  all  such  rights,  so  far  as 
they  respect  the  corporators,  depend  principally  upon,  and 
are  inseparably  connected  with,  the  right  and  privilege  ot 
being  a  member  of  the  Corporation,  and  voting  for  church- 
wardens and  vestrymen  who  have  the  management  and  dis- 
position of  the  temporalities  belonging  to  the  corporation. 

The  Council  proceeded  to  consider  the  same,  and  the  ques- 
tion being  put  thereon,  there  were  in  favor  of  the  objec- 
tions : 

His  Excellency ,  the  Governor, 
Mr.  Justice  Spencer, 
Mr.  Justice  Yates. 
Against  them  : 

Mr.  Chief  Justice  Kent, 
Mr.  Chancellor  Lansing, 
Mr.  Justice  Van  Ness. 
No  order  therefore  was  made  thereon. 
State  of  New-York,  ? 
Secretary's  Office.  ^ 

I  certify  the  preceding  to  be  a  true  extract  from  the  Min- 
utes of  the  (late)  Council  of  Revision  of  this  State  in  this 
office. 

ARCH'D  CAMPBELL, 

Dep.  Sec.  of  State. 

Albany,  June  17,  1845. 


PROCEEDINGS  RELATIVE  TO  THE  ACT  OF 

1814. 

Extracts  from  Journals  of  the  Legislature. 
SENATE. 

1813,  March  17. — The  petition  of  the  rector  and  inhabi- 
tants of  the  City  of  New-York  in  communion  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church,  in  the  State  of  New-York,  praying 
that  an  act  may  be  passed  altering  the  name  of  the  incorpo- 
ration, and  settling  the  question  that  might  arise  in  conse- 
quence of  the  incorporating  other  Episcopal  Congregations 
in  said  city,  and  doing  away  the  necessity  of  exhibiting  an 
inventory  and  account  of  their  estates  and  revenue  more  than 
once,  unless  upon  the  acquisition  of  additional  property, 
was  read. 

Thereupon  Mr.  Haight  moved  for  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill 
pursuant  to  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  LEGISLATURE  IN  1814. 


Ordered,  That  leave  be  given  to  bring  in  such  bill. 

Mr.  Haight,  according  to  leave,  brought  in  said  bill  enti- 
tled, "  An  Act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity 
Church,  in  the  city  of  New-York,  and  for  other  purposes," 
whieh  was  read  the  first  time,  and,  by  unanimous  consent, 
was  also  read  the  second  time,  and  committed  to  a  committee 
of  the  whole. 

March  18. — The  memorial  and  remonstrance  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  inhabitants  of  the 
city  of  New-York,  remonstrating  against  the  passage  of  a 
law  sanctioning  the  proceedings  of  Trinity  Church  in  said 
city,  or  affecting  the  rights  of  the  Episcopal  inhabitants  of 
that  city  who  are  members  of  the  Congregation  of  Trinity 
Church,  was  read  and  referred  to  the  committee  of  the  whole, 
when  on  the  bill  entitled  "  An  Act  to  alter  the  name  of  the 
Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New- York,  and 
for  other  purposes." 

March  20.— The  Senate  then  resolved  itself  into  a  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  on  the  bill  entitled  "  An  Act  to  alter  the 
name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  ;n  New-York, 
and  for  other  purposes,"  and  after  some  time  spent  thereon, 
Mr.  President  (De  Witt  Clinton)  resumed  the  chair,  and  Mr. 
Van  Buren,  from  the  said  committee,  reported  that  the  said 
committee  had  gone  through  the  said  bil',  added  a  proviso, 
and  agreed  to  the  same,  which  he  was  oirected  to  report  to 
the  Senate,  and  he  read  the  report  in  Ms  place,  and  delivered 
the  same  in  at  the  table,  where  it  was  again  read,  and  agreed 
to  by  the  Senate. 

Ordered.  That  the  bill  be  engrossed. 

March  25.— The  engrossed  bill,  "An  Act  to  alter  the 
name  of  the  Incorporation  of  Trinity  Church,  and  tor  other 
purposes,"  was  read  a  third  time. 

Debates  were  had  thereon,  and  Mr.  President  put  the 
question,  whether  the  said  biU  should  pass,  and  it  was  car- 
ried in  the  affirmative. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  called  for  by  Mr.  Root,  seconded 
by  Mr.  Van  Euren,  were  as  follows  : — Affirmative,  21 ;  Ne- 
gative, 9. 

HOUSE  OF  ASSEMBLY 

March  30. — Resolved,  That  the  Attorney-General  be,  and 
he  hereby  is,  requested  to  report  to  this  house,  whether,  in 
his  opinion,  the  passage  of  the  bill  entitled  "  An  Act  to  alter 
the  name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  iii  New-York, 
and  for  other  purposes,"  would  in  any  wise  defeat  or  vary 
any  existing  vested  rights  under  the  charter  granted  May  6th, 
1697,  to  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  in  communion  of  the 
Protestant  Church  of  England  as  now  established  by  our 
laws,  or  any  acts  altering  the  said  charter. 


OPINION  OF  ATTORNEY  GENERAL,  Sec', 


37 


March  31. — The  house  then  resolved  itself  into  committee 
of  the  whole  on  the  bill  entitled  "  An  Act  to  alter  the  name 
ot  Trinity  Church  in  New- Fork,  and  for  other  purposes;" 
and,  after  some  time  spent  thereon,  Mr.  Speaker  resumed 
the  chair,  and  Mr.  Adams,  from  the  said  committee,  reported 
progress,  and  asked  for  and  obtained  leave  to  sit  again. 

Four  o'clock,  p.  m. — The  Attorney-General,  in  obedience 
to  the  resolution  of  the  Honorable  the  Assembly  of  the  30th 
day  of  March,  reported  as  follows,  to  wit : 

That  he  has  examined  a  printed  copy  of  the  charter  granted 
in  the  year  1697  to  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New-York,  as  then  established  by  law,  and  the  acts  altering 
the  said  charter,  together  with  the  bill  referred  to  in  the  said 
resolution,  entitled,  "  An  act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  Corpo- 
ration of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of  New-York,  and  for 
other  purposes,"  and  that  he  is  of  opinion  that  the  passage 
of  the  said  bill  will  not  defeat  or  vary  any  existing  vested 
rights  under  the  said  charter  and  acts.  All  which  is  respect- 
fully submitted.  Ab.  Van  Vechten,  Attor.  Gen. 

April  2 — The  house  then  resolved  itself  into  a  committee 
of  the  whole  on  the  bill  entitled  "  An  Act  to  alter  the  name 
of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  New- York  ;"  and 
after  some  time  spent  thereon,  Mr.  Speaker  resumed  the 
chair,  and  Mr.  R.  Clark  from  the  said  committee,  reported 
that  in  proceeding  on  the  said  bill,  and  after  the  same  had 
been  read  in  committee,  Mr.  Ross  made  a  motion  that  the 
committee  should  agree  to  reject  the  same. 

That  debates  were  had  thereon,  and  the  question  having 
been  put,  whether  the  committee  would  agree  to  the  said 
motion,  it  passed  in  the  negative. 

That  the  yeas  and  nays  were  called  for  by  Mr.  Henderson, 
seconded  by  Mr.  Taylor,  and  were  as  follows,  to  wit : — Nega- 
tiv^e,  66  ;  Affirmative,  23. 

Four  o'clock,  p.  m. — The  engrossed  bill  from  the  Hono- 
rable the  Senate,  entitled  "  An  Act  to  alter  the  name  of 
Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of  New-York,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses," was  read  the  same  time. 

Resolved,  That  the  bill  do  pass. 

Ordered,  That  the  Clerk  deliver  the  bill  to  the  Honorable 
the  Senate,  and  inform  them  that  this  house  have  passed  the 
same  without  amendment. 

April  2,  1813. — Bill  received  by  the  Senate,  and  an  order 
entered,  that  the  Clerk  deliver  the  same  to  the  Council  of 
Revision. 

April  5,  I8l3. — Bill  received  by  the  Council  of  Revision, 
and  referred  to  Chancellor  Lansing,  who  reported  objections 
thereto.    See  ante,  p.  34. 


6 


ACT  OF  1784  FOR  RELIGIOUS  INCORPORATIONS, 


EXTRACTS  FROM 

"  Jlrt  Act  to  enable  all  the  religious  deiiominations  in  this 
State  to  appoint  Trustees,  who  shall  he  a  body  corporatey 
for  the  purpose  of  taking  care  of  the  temporalities  of  their 
respective  congregations^  and  for  other  purposes  therein 
mentioned^ 

Passed  6th  April,  1784. 
[  Taken  from  Jones  and  Varick's  Editions  of  Laws,  vol.  1,  p.  J04,  p.  109.] 

"1.  Be  it  therefore  enacted  by  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Jfew-York,  represented  in  Senate  and  Assembly,  and  it  is 
hereby  enacted  by  the  authority  of  the  same,  That  from  and 
after  the  passing  of  this  Act,  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  to 
and  for  the  male  persons  of  full  age,  belonging  to  any  churchy 
congregation,  or  religious  society  not  already  established 
■within  this  State,  or  which  may  at  any  time  hereafter  be 
within  the  same,  to  assemble  and  meet  together  at  the  churchj 
meeting-house,  or  other  place  where  they  statedly  attend  for 
divine  worship,  and  then  and  there  by  plurality  of  voices,  to 
elect,  nominate,  and  appoint  any  number  of  discreet  and  pru- 
dent persons  of  their  church,  congregation,  or  society,  not 
less  than  three,  or  exceeding  nine  in  number,  as  Trustees, 
to  take  the  charge  of  the  estate  and  property  belonging  to 
their  respective  churches,  congregations,  or  religious  societies, 
and  to  transact  all  affairs  relative  to  the  temporalities  of  their 
respective  churches,  congregations,  or  societies  :  That  at  such 
election  every  male  person  of  full  age,  who  has  statedly  wor- 
shipped with  the  said  church,  congregation,  or  society,  and 
has  formerly  been  considered  as  belonging  thereto,  shall  be 
entitled  to  a  voice  at  such  first  election." 

"  XIV.  And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  authority  afore- 
said, That  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful,  to  and  for  every  reli- 
gious corporation  cseated  by  Letters  Patent  under  the  Great 
Seal  of  the  Colony  of  New- York,  to  have,  hold,  occupy  and 
enjoy,  lands,  tenements,  goods  and  chattels  of  the  yearly 
Talue  of  one  thousand  two  hundred  pounds,  although  the  Let- 
ters Patent  by  which  such  corporation  respectively  were 
created,  should  contain  a  clause  or  clauses  restricting  and 
limiting  the  annual  revenue  and  income  of  such  corporation, 
at  a  sum  less  than  one  thousand  two  hundred  pounds;  any 
law,  usage,  or  custom  to  the  contrary  in  any  wise  notwith- 
standing." 


ACT  OF  ISOI  FOR  RELIGIOUS  INCORPORATIONS. 


99 


EXTRACT  FROM 
*'^a  act  to  provide  for  the  incorporation  of  religious  societies. 

Passed  March  27th,  1801. 

[Taken  from  Keat  and  Radcliffe's  edition,  toI.  1,  p.  33t),] 

^  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  People  of  the  State  of  J^ew-York,  Protestant 
represented  in  Smate  and  Assembly,  That  it  shall  be  lawful  fhurches* 
for  the  male  persons  of  full  aoje,  of  any  church  or  congrega-  ^J^,^"' 
lion  in  communion  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in 
this  State,  who  shall  have  belonged  to  such  church  or  con- 
gregation for  the  last  twelve  months  preceding  such  election, 
and  who  shall  have  been  baptized  in  the  Episcopal  church, 
or  shall  have  been  received  therein  either  by  the  right  of 
confirmation,  or  by  receiving  the  holy  communion,  or  by 
purchasing  or  hiring  a  pew  or  seat  in  said  church,  or  by  some 
fotherj  joint  act  of  the  parties  and  of  the  rector,  whereby 
they  shall  have  attached  themselves  to  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal church,  and  not  already  incorporated,  at  any  time  to 
meet  for  the  purpose  of  incorporating  themselves  under  this 
act,  and  by  a  majoritj'  of  voices,  to  elect  two  church  wardens 
and  eight  vestrymen,  and  to  determine  on  what  day  of  the 
week  called  Easier  week,  the  said  offices  of  church  wardens 
and  vestrymen  shall  annually  thereafter  cease,  and  their  suc- 
cessors in  office  be  chosen  ;  of  which  first  election  notice 
shall  be  given  in  the  time  of  morning  service  on  two  Sundays 
previous  thereto,  by  the  rector,  or  if  there  be  none,  by  any 
other  person  belonging  to  such  church  or  congregation,  and 
that  the  said  rector,  or  if  there  be  none,  or  he  be  necessarily 
absent,  then  one  of  the  church  wardens  or  vestrymen,  or  any 
other  person  called  to  the  chair,  shall  preside  at  such  first 
election,  and  together  with  two  other  persons,  shall  make  a 
certificate  under  their  hands  and  seals,  of  the  church  war- 
tlens  and  vestrymen  so  elected,  of  the  day  of  Easter  week,  so 
fixed  on  for  the  annual  election  of  their  successors,  and  of 
the  name  or  title  by  which  such  church  or  congregation  shall 
be  known  in  law  ;  which  certificate  being  duly  acknowledged 
or  proved  by  one  or  more  of  the  subscribing  witnesses,  before 
the  chancellor  or  one  of  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court,  or 
one  of  the  judges  of  the  court  of  common  pleas  of  the  county 
where  such  church  or  place  of  worship  of  such  congregation 
shall  be  situated,  shall  be  recorded  by  the  clerk  of  such 
county  in  a  book  to  be  by  him  provided  for  that  purpose,  and 
that  the  church  wardens  and  vestrymen  so  elected,  and  their 
successors  in  office  of  themselves,  but  if  there  be  a  rector, 
then  together  with  the  rector  of  such  church  or  congregation, 
shall  form  a  vestry,  and  be  the  trustees  of  such  church  or 
congregation  ;  and  such  trustees  and  their  successors  shall 
thereupon  by  virtue  of  this  act,  be  a  body  corporate  by  the 


40 


ACTS  OF  1801  AND  1813. 


ti^M°of''"'  "'"^6  or  title  expressed  in  such  certificate  ;  and  that  the  per- 
churchww  sons  qualified  as  aforesaid  shall,  in  every  year  thereafter,  on 
iiTmcnregu-  the  day  in  Easter  week  so  to  be  fixed  for  that  purpose,  elect 
such  church  wardens  and  vestrymen,  and  whenever  any  va- 
cancy shall  happen  before  the  stated  annual  election  by  death 
or  otherwise,  the  said  trustees  shall  appoint  a  time  for  hold- 
ing an  election  to  supply  such  vacancy,  of  which  notice  shall 
be  given  in  the  time  of  divine  service,  at  least  ten  days  pre- 
vious thereto  ;  and  such  election,  and  also  the  stated  annual 
elections,  shall  be  holden  immediately  after  morning  service, 
and  at  all  such  elections  the  rector,  or  if  there  be  none,  or  he 
be  absent,  one  of  the  church  wardens  or  vestrymen  shall  pre- 
side and  receive  the  votes  of  the  electors,  and  be  the  return- 
ing officer,  and  shall  enter  the  proceedings  in  the  book  of  the 
minutes  of  the  vestry,  and  sign  his  name  thereto,  and  offer 
the  same  to  as  many  of  the  electors  present  as  he  shall  think 
fit,  to  be  by  them  also  signed  and  certified  ;  and  the  church 
wardens  and  vestrymen  to  be  chosen  at  any  of  the  said  elec- 
tions, shall  hold  their  offices  until  the  expiration  of  the  year 
for  which  they  shall  be  chosen,  and  until  others  be  chosen  in 
their  stead,  and  shall  have  power  to  call  and  induct  a  rector 
Trustees         ^^ich  church  Or  Congregation  as  often  as  there  shall  be  a 
when  andi   vacancy  therein :  Provided  however,  That  no  meeting  or 
howto  meet,  j^^^j.^     such  trustees  shall  be  held,  unless  at  least  three  days 
notice  thereof  shall  be  given  in  writing  under  the  hand  of  the 
rector  or  one  of  the  church  wardens  ;  and  that  no  such  board 
shall  be  competent  to  transact  any  business  unless  the  rector, 
if  there  be  one,  and  at  least  one  of  the  church  wardens  and  a 
majority  of  the  vestrymen  be  present ;  and  such  rector,  if 
there  be  one,  and  if  not,  then  the  church  wardens  present, 
or  if  both  the  church  wardens  be  present,  then  the  church 
warden  who  shall  be  called  to  the  chair  by  a  majority  of 
voices,  shall  preside  at  every  such  meeting  or  board,  and  have 
the  casting  vote. 

[The  preceding  section  was  re-enacted  in  the  revision  of 
1813,  in  the  same  words,  excepting  omissions  which  are  in- 
cluded in  brackets,  of  certain  words  in  the  act  of  1801,  not 
contained  in  the  act  of  I8l3  See  2  Rev.  Laws  of  1813, 
p.  212,  and  vol  3.  Rev.  Stat.  (2d  edition,)  p.  206.] 


AMENDAMENTORY  ACT  OF  1819. 


AMENDAMENTORY  ACT  OF  1819. 

An  act  to  amend  the  act,  entitled  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the 
incorporation  of  religious  societies.^'  Passed  March  5, 
1819.    Chap.  33,  p.  34. 

^  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  People  of  the  State  of  JVew-York, 
represented  in  Senate  and  Assembly,  That  it  shall  be  lawful 
for  the  male  persons,  of  full  age,  belonging  to  any  church, 
congregation  or  religious  society,  in  which  divine  worship 
shall  be  celebrated  according  to  the  rites  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church  in  this  State,  and  not  already  incorporated 
at  any  time  to  meet  for  the  purpose  of  incorporating  them- 
selves, and  of  electing  church  wardens  and  vestrymen,  and 
to  proceed  to  make  such  election,  and  to  effect  such  incorpo- 
ration in  like  manner  as  by  the  first  section  of  the  act  hereby 
amended,  is  authorised  to  be  done  by  persons  possessing  the 
qualifications  therein  specified  :  Provided,  That  no  person 
not  possessing  those  qualifications  shall  be  permitted  to  vote 
at  any  subsequent  election  of  church  wardens  and  vestrymen. 

§  2.  And  he  it  further  enacted.  That  all  incorporations  of 
churches  or  congregations  heretofore  formed  or  made  under 
the  first  section  of  the  act  hereby  amended,  although  by  per- 
sons who  may  not  have  belonged  to  such  churches  or  congre- 
gations for  the  last  twelve  months  then  preceding,  shall  be 
deemed  valid  and  effectual,  in  like  manner,  as  if  formed  or 
made  by  persons  qualified  according  to  the  provisions  of  the 
same  section. 

§  3.  And  be.  it  further  enacted.  That  it  shall  be  lawful  for 
each  and  every  of  the  religious  incorporations  created,  or  to 
be  created,  within  the  city  of  New-York  in  pursuance  of  this 
act,  or  of  the  act  hereby  amended,  to  take  and  hold  real  and 
personal  estate  of  the  annual  value  or  income  of  six  thousand 
dollars,  any  thing  contained  in  the  fourth  section  of  the  act 
hereby  amended  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 


QUEEN  ANNE'S  GRANT. 

Anne,  by  the  grace  of  God,  of  England,  Scotland,  France 
and  Ireland,  Queen,  Defender  of  the  Faith,  &c..  To  all  to 
whom  these  presents  shall  come,  or  may  concern,  send 
greeting  : 

Whereas,  the  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New- 
York,  in  communion  of  the  Church  of  England  as  by  law 
established,  were  (by  an  act  of  Assembly  made  in  the  third 


QUEEN  ANNE'S  GRANT. 


year  of  our  reigne,  entitled  An  act  granting  sundry  privi- 
leges and  powers  to  the  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City 
of  New- York,  of  the  communion  of  the  Church  of  England 
as  by  the  law  established,)  incorporated  by  the  name  of  the 
Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New-York  in  com- 
munion of  the  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established,  and 
made  persons  corporate  in  the  law  to  sue  or  to  be  sued  in 
any  action  or  matter  whatsoever  ;  and  by  that  name  they  and 
their  successors  should  hold  and  enjoy  the  Church  there 
called  Trinity  Church,  burying- place  and  lands  thereunto 
belonging,  by  whatever  name  or  names  the  same  were  pur- 
chased and  had  ;  and  that  the  said  Rector  and  Inhabitants, 
and  their  successors  by  the  same  name  from  thenceforward 
should  have  good  rights  and  lawful  authority  to  have,  take, 
receive,  acquire,  and  purchase  and  use  and  enjoy  lands,  tene- 
ments and  hereditaments,  goods  and  chattels,  and  to  demise, 
lease  and  improve  the  said  lands,  tenements  and  heredita- 
ments, and  to  use  and  improve  such  goods  and  chatties  to  the 
benefit  of  the  said  Church  and  other  pious  uses,  not  exceed- 
ing live  hundred  pounds  yearly  rents  or  incomes,  with  diverse 
other  privileges  and  powers  to  them  the  said  Rector  and  In- 
habitants, and  their  successors,  as  by  the  said  recited  act  more 
at  length  it  doth  and  may  appear. 

And  whereas  the  said  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  said 
City  of  New-York,  in  communion  of  the  Church  of  England 
as  by  law  established,  by  their  petition  to  our  right  trusty 
and  well  beloved  cousin,  Edward  Viscount  Cornbury,  our 
Captain  General  and  Governor  in  Chiefe  in  and  over  our 
province  of  New-York  and  territories  thereon  depending  in 
America,  and  Vice  Admiral  of  the  same,  have  humbly  pray- 
ed that  wee  would  grant  and  confirm  unto  them  and  their 
successors  for  the  use  of  the  said  Church,  all  those  our  severall 
closes,  peeces  and  parcells  of  land,  meadows  and  pastures 
formerlly  called  the  Duke's  Farme,  and  the  King's  Farme, 
now  known  by  the  name  of  the  Queen's  Farme,  with  all  and 
singular  ye  fences,  inclosures,  improvements  and  appurte- 
nances whatsoever  thereunto  belonging  as  the  same  are  nov/ 
in  the  occupation  of  and  enjoyed  by  George  Ryerse  of  the 
City  of  New-York,  yeoman,  or  by  any  former  tenant,  scitu- 
ate,  lying  and  being  on  the  Island  Manhattans  in  the  city  of 
New-York  aforesaid,  and  bounded  on  the  East,  partly  by 
the  Broadway,  partly  by  the  Common,  and  partly  by  the 
Swamp,  and  on  the  West  by  Hudson's  River,  and  also  all 
that  our  piece  or  parcell  of  ground,  scituate  and  being  on  the 
south  side  of  the  churchyard  of  Trinity  Church  aforesaid, 
commonly  called  and  known  by  the  name  of  the  Queen's 
Garden,  fronting  to  the  said  Broadway  on  the  East,  and  ex- 
tending to  low  water  marke  upon  Hudson  River  on  the  West, 
all  which  said  premises  are  now  lett  at  the  yearly  rent  of 
thirty  pounds,  which  reasonable  request  wee  being  willing  to 


QUEEN  ANNE'S  GRANT. 


grant  ;  know  ye  that  of  our  especiall  grace,  certaine  know- 
ledge, and  meer  motion,  we  have  given,  granted,  ratified  and 
confirmed  in  and  by  these  presents,  for  ourself,  our  heirs,  and 
successors,  we  do  give,  grant,  rattify  and  confirm  unto  the 
said  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New-York  in  com- 
munion of  the  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established  and 
their  successors  all  and  singular  the  said  farme  lands,  tene- 
ments and  hereditaments  hereinbefore  mentioned,  as  the  same 
are  hereinbefore  particularly  stt  forth,  with  the  appurte- 
nances and  every  part  and  parcell  thereof  or  thereunto  be- 
longing or  accepted,  reputed,  or  taken  as  part  parcell  or 
member  thereof  as  the  same  now  are  held,  occupied  and  en- 
joyed by  the  said  George  Ryerse,  or  have  been  heretofore 
occupied  and  enjoyed  by  any  former  tenant  or  tenants,  and 
all  rents,  arrearages  of  rents,  issues  and  profits  thereof,  and 
of  every  or  any  part  or  parcell  thereof  together  with  all 
woods,  underwoods,  trees,  timber  which  now  are  standing 
and  growing,  or  which  hereafter  shall  stand  and  grow  in  and 
upon  the  premises  hereby  granted,  or  any  part  thereof,  and 
all  feedings,  pastures,  meadows,  marshes,  swamps,  ponds, 
pooles,  waters,  watercourses,  rivers,  rivolets,  runs  and  streams 
of  water  brooks,  fishing,  fowling,  hawking,  hunting,  mines 
and  minerals,  and  all  and  singular  the  ways,  passages,  ease- 
ments, profits,  commodities  and  appurtenances  whatsoever  to 
the  said  farm,  several  closes,  peects  and  parcells  of  land  and 
premises  belonging  or  in  any  wise  of  right  appertaining  (ex- 
cept and  always  reserved  out  of  this,  our  present  grant  all 
gold  and  silver  mines.) 

To  have  and  to  hold  the  said  farme,  severall  closes,  pieces 
and  parcplls  of  land  and  premises  hereinbefore  granted  and 
confirmed  or  meant,  mentioned,  or  intended  to  be  hereby 
granted  and  confirmed  with  their  and  every  of  their  appur- 
tenances (except  before  excepted)  unto  the  said  Rector  and 
Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New-York  in  communion  with  the 
Church  of  England  as  by  law  established,  and  their  succes- 
sors forever.  To  be  holden  of  us,  our  heirs  and  successors 
in  free  and  common  socage  as  of  our  Manor  of  East  Green- 
wich in  our  County  of  Kent,  within  cur  kingdom  of  England, 
yielding,  rendering,  and  paying  therefore  yearly  and  every 
year  unto  us,  our  heirs  and  successors  at  our  City  of  New- 
York  aforesaid  to  our  Collector  and  Receiver  General  there 
for  the  time  being,  on  the  feast  of  the  Nativity  of  our  bless- 
ed Saviour  the  yearly  rent  of  three  shillings  current  money 
of  New-York  in  lieu  and  stead  of  all  other  rents,  services, 
dues,  duties  and  demands  whatsoever,  Provided  always,  and 
our  present  grant  is  upon  this  condition  that  if  our  Capt. 
Generall  and  Govr.  in  Chief  for  the  time  being  of  our  said 
Province  of  New-York,  shall  at  any  time  hereafter  cease  or 
forbear  the  yearly  payment  of  six  and  twenty  pounds  for  the 
house  rent  of  the  Rector  or  Minister  of  Trinity  Church  of 


QUEEN  ANNE'S  CONFIRMATION. 


New-York  aforesaid,  which  is  now  paid  out  of  our  revenue 
in  the  said  province,  and  at  such  time,  no  suitable  house  shall 
be  erected  and  built  for  the  proper  use  and  convenient  dwell- 
ing of  the  Rector  of  the  said  Church  for  the  time  being,  yt 
then  the  said  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  said  City  of  New- 
York,  in  Communion  of  the  Church  of  England  as  by  law 
established,  and  their  successors  shall  from  thenceforth  yearly, 
and  every  year,  out  of  the  rents  and  profits  of  the  hereinbe- 
fore granted  lands  and  premises,  pay  and  discharge  the  same 
for  and  until  such  suitable  house  shall  be  erected  and  built 
for  the  proper  use  and  convenient  dwelling  of  the  Rector  of 
the  said  Church  for  the  time  being,  any  thing  herein  before 
in  this  oiu"  grant  conteined  to  the  contrary  thereof  in  any 
wise  notwithstanding.  In  testimony  whereot  we  have  caused 
these  our  letters  to  be  made  pattents,  and  the  seal  of  our  said 
province  of  New-York  to  our  said  letters  pattent  to  be  affix- 
ed and  the  same  to  be  recorded  in  the  Secretary's  Office  of 
our  Province.  Witness  our  Right  trusty  and  well  beloved 
cousin  Edward  Viscount  Cornbury,  Capt.  Generall  and  Govr. 
in  Chief  in  and  over  our  province  aforesaid  and  territory  de- 
pending thereon  in  America  and  Vice  Admirall  of  the  same 
&c.  in  Council  at  our  fort  in  New-York  aforesaid  the  three 
and  twentieth  day  of  November,  in  the  lourth  year  of  our 
reigne  anno  Dm.  1705. 

State  of  New-York,  Secretary's  Office. 

I  certify  the  preceding  to  be  a  true  copy  of  certain  let- 
ters patent  as  of  record  in  this  office,  in  Book  of  Patents  No. 
7,  page  338,  &c. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  affixed  the 
L.  s.     seal  of  this  Office,  at  the  City  of  Albany,  the  9th 
day  of  November,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty. 

ARCH'D  CAMPBELL,  Deputy  Secretary. 


QUEEN  ANNE'S  RECOGNITION  AND  IN- 
STRUCTIONS OF  APRIL  14,  1714. 

Anne  R. 

Trusty  and  well  beloved,  we  greet  you  well. 

Whereas,  our  trusty  and  well  beloved,  the  Rector,  Church 
Wardens,  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church  in  our  city  of 
New-York,  have  by  their  humble  address,  represented  unto 
us,  that  our  right  trusty  and  our  right  well  beloved  cousin 
and  councillor  Edward,  Earl  of  Clarendon,  our  late  governor 
of  our  province  of  New-York,  did  grant  a  lease  of  our  farm 


QUEEN  ANNE'S  CONFIRMATION. 


to  them  for  seven  years,  under  the  rent  of  sixty  bushels  of 
wheat  yearly  payable  unto  us,  (the  like  having  been  before 
granted  to  Colonel  Benjamin  Fletcher,  Governor  under  our 
late  royal  brother.  King  William,  with  the  like  reservation,) 
but  as  these  rents  were  esteemed  a  perquisite  of  the  several 
governors,  for  the  time  being,  the  said  Colonel  Fletcher,  who 
was  a  great  benefactor  and  promoter  of  the  first  settling  of 
that  Church,  did  remit  the  rent  during  his  time  for  that  pious 
use,  as  also  did  the  Eail  of  Clarendon,  so  much  as  accrued 
under  the  lease  granted  in  his  time. 

And  that  the  said  Earl,  for  promoting  the  interest  of  the 
said  Church,  and  settling  a  lasting  foundatioa  for  its  support, 
did  by  virtue  of  the  authority  derived  from  us,  under  our  great 
seal  of  England,  grant  the  same  farm  under  the  seal  of  our  pro- 
vince of  New-York,  to  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the 
city  of  New-Ynik,  in  communion  of  the  Church  of  Kngland, 
as  by  law  established,  and  their  successors  for. ever,  under  the 
yeaily  rent  of  three  shillings. 

But  that  the  corporation  of  the  said  Church,  are  now  pro- 
secuted in  our  Court  of  Chancery,  there  in  our  name,  for  the 
several  rents  reserved  on  the  leases  before  granted,  and  by 
the  several  governors  before  remitted,  and  that  our  letters 
patent  for  the  said  farm,  are  rendered  disputable,  and  there- 
fore humbly  imploring,  that  we  will  be  graciously  pleased  to 
give  such  directions  for  stopping  the  said  prosecution  as  we 
shall  think  fit. 

We  takmg  the  premises  into  our  royal  consideration  have 
thought  fit  to  signify  our  will  and  pleasure  unto  you,  and 
accordingly  our  will  and  pleasure  is,  that  immediately  upon 
receipt  hereof,  you  do  stop  the  prosecution  now  carrying  en 
in  our  court  of  chancery  there  against  the  said  corporation, 
and  do  not  suffer  any  further  proceedings  to  be  had  in  that 
suit,  until  we  shall  signify  our  further  pleasure  to  you,  and 
for  so  doing,  this  shall  be  your  warrant,  and  so  we  bid  you 
farewell. 

Given  at  our  Court  of  St.  James,  the  14th  day  of  April, 
1714,  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  our  reign. 

By  her  Majesty's  Command. 

BOLINGBROKE. 


THE 


TRINITY  CHURCH  TITLE. 


REPORT 

OF  THE 

COMMISSIONERS  OF  THE  LAND  OEFICE. 

MADE  TO  THE 

HOUSE   OF  ASSEMBLY, 

MAT  12,  1836. 


MEMORIAL 


OF 


^l)e  Corporation  of  ^rtnitg  C()itrcf), 

TO  THE 

LEGISLATURE. 

March  26th,  1853. 
&c.,  &c. 


PUDNEY  &  RUSSELL,  PRINTERS, 

Xo.  79  John-Street. 
1855. 


NOTE  IN  1846. 


In  1835  there  appeared,  in  the  New- York  Gazette,  a  publication 
under  the  signature  of  Vindex,  upon  the  subject  of  the  Trinity  Church 
title,  with  a  Memorial  to  the  Legislature,  founded  upon  the  views  of 
the  writer.  The  House  of  Assembly  referred  the  matter  to  the  Com- 
missioners of  the  Land  Office,  who  made  the  Report  that  is  contain- 
ed in  the  following  pages.  Vindex's  argument  appears  to  have  been 
adopted  by  Counsel,  in  a  late  case  before  the  Assistant  Vice  Chan- 
cellor of  the  First  Circuit.  (See  New-York  Evening  Post,  of  Fri- 
day, Feb.  13th,  1846.)  The  reminiscence  of  this  Report,  and  of 
the  principles  it  contains,  and  the  conclusions  arrived  at  in  it,  may 
quiet  some  present  disposition  to  revive  the  same  questions. 

The  signers  of  this  document  were,  the  Attorney  General,  the 
Secretary  of  State,  the  Comptroller,  the  Treasurer,  and  the  Survey- 
or General  of  the  State,  ex  officio  Commissioners  of  the  Land  Office. 
The  Hon.  Greene  C,  Bronson  was  Attorney  General  at  the 
time  of  the  reference  and  the  hearing  of  the  parties,  but  being  ele- 
vated to  the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  on  6th  January,  1836,  the 
proceedings  were  continued  and  concluded  in  the  time  of  his  suc- 
cessor, who  acquiesced  in  the  Report,  the  argument  being  on  paper. 


ADDITIONAL  NOTE  IN  1855. 

Very  extraordinary  pretensions  and  very  mistaken  ideas  respect- 
ing the  Trinity  Church  title  having  been  lately  revived  by  parties 
speculating  upon  the  chance  either  of  extorting  money  from  the 
Church,  or  of  disposing  of  shares  in  the  enterprise  of  a  suit  by  the 
State,  for  the  partial  benefit  of  the  informers  it  has  been  consider- 
ed advisable  again  to  re-publish  the  Report  of  the  Commissioners  of 
the  Land  Office,  made  to  the  Legislature  of  1836.  As  the  principles 
of  Law  and  Justice  never  alter,  and  changes  in  the  Statutes  cannot 
affect  vested  rights,  a  perusal  of  this  paper  may  prevent  improvident 
commitments,  induced  by  the  representations  and  persuasions  of  in- 
terested parties,  with,  unfortunately,  some  show  of  encouragement 
by  the  Public  Authorities. 

Those  inclined  to  examine  the  evidence  of  the  Church's  right  to 
the  property,  will  find  complete  and  overwhelming  testimony  in  the 
Report  of  the  case  of  Bogardus  vs.  Trinity  Church,  in  Sandford's 
Chancery  Reports,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  633  and  369. 


0tate  of  Nero-gork. 


No.  321. 


IN  ASSEMBLY, 

V  May  12,  1836. 


REPORT 

Of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land-  Office,  on  the  memo- 
rial of  Wm.  Cochran,  tTohn  William  Fay,  and  sundry 
other  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-  Yorh,  in  relation 
to  Trinity  Church. 

TO  THE  ASSEMBLY: 

The  Commissioners  of  the  Land  Office,  to  whom  was 
referred  the  memorial  of  William  Cochran,  John  Wil- 
liam Fay,  and  sundry  other  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New- York,  in  respect  to  Trinity  Church  in  that  city, 
have  the  honor  to  present  the  following 

H  £  p  0  r  t: 

The  memorial  was  referred  to  the  Commissioners  on 
the  30th  Mai'ch,  1835,  and  the  report  has  been  delayed 
to  this  time  by  the  desire  of  the  Commissioners  to 
afford  to  the  parties  concerned  an  opportunity  to  be 


4 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMinSSIONERS 


heard,  if  they  should  so  desire,  and  by  other  circumstan- 
ces which  it  was  not  in  their  power  to  control.  A  day 
was  appointed  for  the  hearing  during  the  recess  of  the 
Legislature,  and  the  proper  notices  were  given,  as  well 
to  the  memorialists  as  to  Trinity  Church.  The  latter 
appeared  by  counsel,  from  whom  a  paper  was  subse- 
quently received,  stating  the  legal  grounds  on  which 
the  church  claims  to  hold  its  corporate  property. 

The  memorialists  suggest,  that  there  is  in  the  city  of 
New- York  an  ecclesiastical  body,  called  "  The  Rector, 
Church-Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church  in 
the  city  of  New- York that  said  "  church  is  in  posses- 
sion, and  receives  the  profits,  of  a  very  extended  landed 
estate ;"  that  the  revenue  of  said  church  was  formerly 
limited  by  the  Legislature  of  this  State  "to  the  sum  of 
twelve  hundred  pounds  per  annum  of  the  then  currency," 
"  which  would  amount  to  three  thousand  dollars  of  the 
present  currency  ;"  but  that  its  present  revenue  "  very 
much  exceeds  the  sum  to  which  it  is  limited"  by  law, 
and  that  the  immense  wealth  of  Trinity  Church  gives  it 
"  a  preponderating  influence,  not  only  in  the  affairs  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this  State,  but  in 
those  of  the  United  States."  That  in  the  opinion  of  the 
memorialists,  the  possession  of  so  great  wealth  by  this 
society,  is  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  government 
and  Constitution  of  this  State ;  and  that,  in  permitting 
it  so  to  be  held,  the  government  give  a  preference  to  "  a 
particular  religious  denomination."  The  memoriahsts, 
therefore,  pray  that  "  the  whole  of  said  real  estate,  or 


OF  THE  LAOT)  OFFICE, 


5 


so  mucli  thereof  as  creates  the  excess  of  revenue,  be- 
yond the  amount  limited,  may  be  taken  to  and  for  the 
people  of  this  State  ;  and  that  the  Legislature  T\all 
take  such  proceedings  in  the  premises  as  may  seem 
proper." 

On  the  sixth  of  May,  1697,  William  III.,  King  of 
England,  granted  a  charter  of  incorporation  to  a  rector 
and  certain  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  Xew-York.  This 
charter  recites,  amongst  other  things,  that  certain  in- 
habitants of  said  city  had,  by  their  petition,  represented 
that  a  church  had  been  built  within  said  city,  at  the 
charge  of  the  governor  of  the  then  province  of  New- 
York,  and  several  other  inhabitants  of  said  city,  and 
prayed  that  said  "  church  might  be  made  parochial  and 
incorporate  into  one  body  politic,  in  fact  and  in  name 
and  that  a  yearly  maintenance  might  be  appropriated 
unto  said  church,  and  also  that  his  majesty  would  make 
a  royal  grant  of  a  piece  of  land  near  adjoining  to  said 
church,  for  the  use  of  said  church  and  corporation  ; 
wherefore  in  consideration  of  the  premises,  and  of  the 
great  charge  which  must  accrue  in  finishing  said  church, 
«fec.,  and  in  erecting  and  providing  a  parsonage  house, 
Sec,  his  majesty  granted  and  declared  that  said  church, 
"  situate  in  and  near  the  street  called  Broadway,"  in  the 
city  of  New- York,  "  and  the  ground  thereunto  adjoining, 
inclosed  and  used  as  a  cemetery  or  church-yard,"  should 
be  the  parish  church  and  church-yai'd  of  the  parish  of 
Trinity  Church,  within  said  city,  and  dedicated  to  the 
service  of  God,  and  applied  thereunto  for  the  use  of 


6 


REPORT  OF  THE  COHEMISSIONERS 


those  who  might  from  time  to  time  be  inhabitants  of 
the  city  of  New-York,  in  communion  with  said  Protest- 
ant Church  of  England,  as  then  established  by  the  law, 
and  to  no  other  use  or  purpose  whatever ;  and  that 
there  should  be  a  rector,  and  a  jserpetual  succession  of 
rectors  in  said  parish,  the  Bishop  of  London  being 
thereby  constituted  the  first  rector.    The  charter  also 
declared  and  provided,  that  said  Bishop  and  his  success- 
ors, rectors  of  said  parish,  and  the  inhabitants  of  said 
citj,  in  communion  as  aforesaid,  should  be  a  body  corpo- 
rate and  politic,  in  fact  and  in  name,  by  the  name  of 
"  The  Hector  and  Inhabitants  of  our  said  city  of  JSFexu- 
Yoi'h^  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  Church  of  Eng- 
land^ as  now  established  hy  our  laws^''  with  perpetual 
succession,  and  power  to  have,  acquire,  and  purchase 
lands,  goods  and  chattels,  and  to  use,  lease,  and  dispose 
of  the  same  as  other  liege  people,  "  or  any  corporation," 
within  the  realm  of  England  or  said  province  might  law- 
fully do,  "  not  exceeding  the  yearly  value  of  five  thou- 
sand pounds."  It  was  also  declared  by  said  charter,  "  that 
the  said  church  cemetery,  or  church-yard,"  should  "  be 
the  sole  and  only  parish  church  and  church-yard  of" 
said  city  of  New-York ;  and  a  certain  yearly  mainte- 
nance of  one  hundred  pounds,  directed  by  an  act*  of  the 
general  assembly  of  said  province,  was  in  and  by  said 
charter  granted  to  said  rector  and  his  successors  for- 
ever, to  be  levied  and  collected  according  to  said  act ;  the 

*  This  act  was  passed  24th  March,  1693.    Livingston  and  Smith's  edition 
of  the  Provincial  Laws,  p.  18. 


OF  THB  LAND  OFFICE. 


7 


said  premises,  riglits,  &c.,  to  be  liolden  by  said  corpora- 
tion in  free  and  common  socage,  at  the  yearly  rent  of 
one  pepper  corn,  if  demanded. 

This  is  an  epitome,  so  far  as  is  deemed  to  be  material, 
of  the  original  charter  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of 
New- York. 

An  act  of  the  Legislature  of  the  province  of  New- 
York,  passed  the  27th  of  June,  1704,  *  recites  that  Trin- 
ity Church  had  been  erected  by  the  voluntary  contribu- 
tions of  sundry  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York, 
who  had  also  purchased  and  procured,  and  held  and  en- 
joyed "  the  said  church,  with  the  cemetery  or  burying- 
place,  and  a  certain  tract  of  land  belonging  thereto." 
The  act  then  proceeds  to  declare  that  the  rector  of  said 
church,  and  the  inhabitants  of  said  city,  in  communion 
of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  law  established,  and 
their  successors,  should  possess  corporate  powers,  and  as 
such  corporation,  might  "  hold,  use,  exercise  and  enjoy" 
the  said  church,  burying-place,  and  land  thereto  belong- 
ing, by  whatsoever  name  or  names  the  same  were  pur- 
chased and  had,  and  "  in  as  firm  and  ample  a  manner 
in  the  law,  as  if  the  said  rector  and  inhabitants  had 
been  legally  incorporated"  before  the  purchasing,  ta- 
king, receiving,  and  holding  the  same. 

It  is  probable  that  the  title  of  the  corporation  to  the 
church,  burying-place  and  land  adjacent,  had  been  called 
in  question  before  the  passing  of  this  act,  and  that  a 
principal  object  of  the  provision  which  has  been  recited, 

*  Livingston  and  Smith's  edition  of  the  ProTincial  Laws,  p.  60. 


8 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSIONERS 


was  to  confirm  that  title  and  render  it  incontestable. 
The  first  step  in  the  origin  and  progress  of  Trinity 
Church,  appears  to  have  been  the  . erection  of  the  church 
by  voluntary  contribution,  and  the  acquisition  of  a  title 
of  some  description  to  the  land  on  which  the  church 
was  erected,  and  the^  land  adjacent  thereto.  In  whom 
this  title  was  vested,  does  not  appear ;  but  by  the  sixth 
section  of  the  act  last  referred  to,  it  appears  that  the 
title  had  been  conveyed  by  the  corporation  of  the  city 
of  New- York,  "yb?-  the  use  of  Trinity  Church."  The 
church,  however,  had  not  then  been  incorporated,  and  was 
therefore  incapable  of  taking  a  legal  title.  The  charter 
of  incorporation  was  subsequent  to  this  grant  and  to  the 
erection  of  the  church ;  but  this,  although  it  gave  to  the 
body  thereby  created  a  capacity  to  acquire  and  receive 
title  to  the  church  property,  did  not,  in  fact,  invest  it 
with  that  title.  That  could  only  be  effected  by  subse- 
quent legal  conveyance  to  the  corporation ;  or  in  case 
the  title  had  previously  been  transferred  in  an  informal 
manner,  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  were  thus  incor- 
porated, the  Legislature  might  correct  such  defects 
and  informalities,  and  thus  vest  the  title  according  to 
what  had  been  the  real  intention  of  all  parties.  This 
is  what  the  act  of  2Yth  June,  1704,  was  intended  to  ef- 
fectuate ;  and  hence  it  provided,  that  the  corporation 
should  have  and  hold  said  church,  burying-place  and 
land,  by  whatsoever  name  the  same  were  purchased 
or  granted,  in  as  ample  a  manner  as  if  said  corpora- 
tion had  been  created  hefore  such  purchase  or  grant 
had  been  made. 


OF  THE  LAND  OFFICE. 


9 


The  act  of  27th  June,  1704,  also  declares  that  said 
corporation  may  acquire  and  purchase  lands,  tenements 
and  hereditaments,  goods  and  chattels,  and  lease  and 
improve  such  lands,  «fec.,  in  amount,  however,  "  not  ex- 
ceeding five  hundred  pounds  yearly  rent  or  income,'" 

This  corporation  was,  therefore,  not  only  originally 
created  by  the  King's  charter,  but  it  was  subsecpently 
declared  by  the  Provincial  Legislature  to  be  a  corpora- 
tion, and  to  possess  such  general  powers  as  the  original 
charter  had  assumed  to  confer  upon  it. 

On  the  twenty-third  day  of  November,  1705, 
Lord  Cornbury,  Governor  of  the  Province  of  Kew- 
York,  in  the  name,  and  as  the  act  and  deed  of  Queen 
Anne,  made  a  lease,  by  which  certain  pieces  of  land, 
formerly  called  the  Duke's  farm  and  the  King's  farm, 
and  then  known  by  the  name  of  the  Queen's  farm,  as 
the  same  were  then  in  the  occupation  of  and  enjoyed 
by  George  Ryerse,  or  by  any  former  tenant,  situate  in 
the  city  of  New- York,  "  and  bounded  on  the  east  partly 
by  the  Broadway,  partly  by  the  common,  and  partly  by 
the  swamp,  and  on  the  west  by  Hudson's  river ;  also, 
all  that  one  piece"  of  land  "  on  the  south  side  of  the 
church-yard  of  Trinity  Church,"  called  the  Queen's 
garden,  were  granted  and  confirmed  to  said  corporation, 
to  the  use  "  of  the  said  rector  and  inhabitants  of  the 
said  city  of  New- York,  in  communion  of  the  Church  of 
England,  as  by  law  established,  and  their  successors  for- 
ever^ to  be  holden"'  in  free  and  common  socage,  paying 
the  yearly  rent  of  three  shillings. 


10 


REPOET  OF  THE  COMMISSIONERS 


The  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  is  understood  to 
possess  and  claim  title  to  several  pieces  of  land  in  the 
city  of  New- York. 

1.  The  land  on  which  the  church  was  erected,  and  the 
church-yard  thereto  adjoining,  &c.  These  lands  seem, 
in  part,  to  have  been  purchased  hy  voluntary  contribu- 
tions, and  the  residue  granted  by  the  city  of  New- York, 
for  the  use  of  Trinity  Church,  before  the  corporation 
was  created.  The  title  of  the  corporation  to  these  lands 
was  confirmed  by  the  act  of  2Ttli  June,  llOi. 

2.  The  Duke's  farm,  the  King's  farm,  and  Queen's 
farm ;  all  meaning  the  same  piece  of  land. 

3.  The  King's  or  Queen's  garden,  as  it  was  called,  on 
the  south  side  of  the  church-yard. 

The  two  last  pieces  were  conveyed  to  the  corporation 
by  the  lease  of  1*705,  of  which  an  abstract  has  been  given. 

Upon  these  sources  of  title,  together  with  an  uninter- 
rupted possession  under  them,  the  Corporation  of  Trinity 
Church  relies  to  establish  its  present  right  to  the  pro- 
perty in  question. 

It  has  been  suggested,  however,  that  the  lease  execu- 
ted by  Governor  Cornbury,  in  1*705,  being  in  perpetu- 
ity, was,  on  that  ground,  null  and  Void ;  and  it  is  true 
that  an  act  of  the  Provincial  Legislature  of  12th  May, 
1 699,*  declares  that  it  shall  not  be  in  the  power  of  any 
Governor  of  the  Province  of  New-York,  "  to  grant  or 

♦Livingston  auJ  Smith's  edition  of  (he  Provincial  Laws,  yt.  33,  eh.  79, 
1)3. 


OF  THE  LAND  OFFICE. 


11 


demise  for  any  longer  than  his  own  time  in  the  govern- 
'  ment,  any  of  the  lands  hereinafter  mentioned,  that  is  to 
say :  Nutten  Island,  the  Kings  farm,  tlie  King's  garden., 
the  swamp,  and  fresh  water,"  "  being  the  demesne  of 
his  majesty's  fort  at  New- York,  and  for  the  benefit  and 
accommodation  of  his  majesty's  governors  and  com- 
manders in  chief  for  the  time  being." 

But  this  act  was  repealed  by  an  act  passed  on  the 
27th  of  November,  1702.* 

It  is  true,  that  the  repealing  act  was  annulled  by 
Queen  Anne,  the  26th  of  June,  1708,  and  the  restrain- 
ing act  of  12th  May  J  1699,  was  at  the  same  time  con- 
firmed by  her  majesty. 

But,  although  the  power  of  the  crown,  to  annul  acts 
of  the  Provincial  Legislature,  was  indisputable,  and  they 
were  required  to  be  transmitted  to  the  Sovereign  of 
Great  Britain  "  for  approbation  or  disallowance ;"  and, 
if  disallowed,  were,  "  from  thenceforth,"  void,  and  of 
none  effect,  yet,  until  so  disallowed,  they  were,  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes,  laws.  The  power  of  the  Provincial 
Governor  to  make  leases  of  the  crown  lands  was,  there- 
fore, unlimited  in  1705,  when  the  lease  in  question  was 
made.  This  lease  seems,  therefore,  to  have  been  valid 
and  effectual  in  its  inception,  and  to  have  been  so  re- 
garded during  the  continuance  of  the  Provincial  gov- 
ernment. 

It  appears  from  an  entry  in  "  Quit-Rent  Ledger,  No. 

*  Livingston  and  Smith's  edition  of  the  Provincial  Laws,  p.  52  ;  and 
Bradford's  edition  of  the  Provincial  Laws,  p.  196. 


12 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMJVnSSIONERS 


1,"  of  the  office  of  tlie  Receiver  General  of  the  Province 
of  New- York,  and  which  is  now  in  the  Comptroller's 
Office,  that  the  rent  of  three  shillings  per  annum,  re- 
served by  the  lease  of  the  23d  November,  1705,  was 
paid  in  full  to  the  25th  of  December,  1Y50. 

It  also  appears  from  Quit-Rent  Book,  D.,  in  the  Comp- 
troller's Office,  that  on  the  20th  of  September,  1786, 
the  rent  for  eleven  years  preceding  the  25th  December 
in  that  year,  was  paid  to  the  State,  and  that  a  farther 
sum  of  two  pounds  two  shillings,  being  fourteen  times 
the  amount  of  one  year's  rent,  was  paid  by  way  of  com- 
mutation, and  in  full  satisfaction '  and  discharge  of  said 
rent.  This  payment  was  made  under  and  pursuant  to 
the  act  of  the  first  of  April,  1786,  which  declares  that 
such  payment  "  shall  be  a  good  discharge  of  such  quit- 
rent  forever".* 

The  lease  of  1705  seems,  therefore,  to  have  been  re- 
garded as  a  subsisting  and  valid  grant,  not  only  by  the 
Provincial  Government  to  as  late  a  period  as  1750,  when 
rent  was  paid  upon  it,  but  by  the  government  of  this 
State,  in  1786,  when  the  rent  reserved  was  finally  com- 
muted and  satisfied. 

There  is  probably  no  room  to  doubt  but  that  the  Cor- 
poration of  Trinity  Church  has,  by  its  agents  and  ten- 
ants, held  and  possessed  the  lands  in  question,  claiming 
an  absolute  and  indefeasible  estate  therein,  free  from  all 
rents  and  charges,  &c.,  from  the  commutation  and  pay- 
ment of  said  quit-rent,  in  1786.    If  this  is  so,  it  would 

*  Jones  and  Varick's  edition  of  the  Laws,  Vol.  I.,  250. 


OF  THE  LAND  OFFICE. 


13 


seem  to  be  clear,  that  if  the  people  of  this  State  then 
had  a  right  to  said  lands,  that  right  has  been  lost,  and 
is  barred  by  lapse  of  time.  By  the  act  of  26th  Febru- 
ary, 1T88,  the  right  of  the  people  of  this  State  to  sue 
for  the  recovery  of  lands  is  limited  to  forty  years  after 
the  right  of  action  accrued  ;  and  the  same  period  was 
continued  down  to  the  late  revision  of  the  laws  of  this 
State.*  The  limitation  in  England,  and  in  the  Province 
of  New- York,  was  sixty  years. 

An  act,  passed  the  17th  of  April,  1784,  f  makes  cer- 
tain alterations  in  the  charter,  "  to  render  it  more  con- 
formable to  the  Constitution  of  the  State ;"  and  the  act 
of  10th  March,  1788,J  authorizes  the  corporation  to  take 
and  use  the  name  of  "  The  Rector  and  InJiabitanis  of 
the  city  of  New-  Yor\  in  communion  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  in  the  State  of  Neiv-  YbrX-,"  and  con- 
firms certain  conveyances  made  to  or  by  said  corpora- 
tion, by  "  any  other  name  or  names"  whatever. 

An  act  of  the  14th  March,  1806,  §  recites  that  a 
charity  school  had,  for  a  considerable  number  of  years 
past,  been  under  the  care  and  management  of  the  Cor- 
poration of  Trinity  Church,  and  that  said  school  had 
lately  been  endowed  by  said  corporation.  It  then  prO' 
ceeds  to  incorporate  the  trustees  of  said  school,  and  de^ 
clares  that  they  shall,  in  each  year,  render  an  account 
to  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church. 

*  1  K.  L.  p.  184,  and  the  acts  there  referred  to. 

fHolt  and  Loudon's  edition  of  the  Laws,  7th  Session,  p.  At. 

X  lb.  11th  Session,  ch.  kvi.         ^  Laws  of  29th  Session,  p.  126. 


14 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSIONEES 


The  act  of  25th  January,  1814,*  changed  the  name  of 
the  corporation  to  that  of  "  The  Rector^  Clvwrch-  War- 
dens^ and  Vestrymen  of  Triniiy  Church,  in  tlie  city  of 
New-  YorTcP  This  statute  confirms  the  separation  which 
had  previously  taken  place  between  said  corporation 
and  Saint  George's  Chapel,  and  the  transfer  of  property 
which  had  been  made  by  the  Corporation  of  Trinity 
Church  to  that  chapel.  It  also  authorized,  the  Corpora- 
tion of  Trinity  Church,  as  often  as  should  seem  expedi- 
ent, "  to  divide  the  congregation  or  corj)orators  belong- 
ing to  said  corporation,"  by  setting  apart,  as  a  separate 
church,  any  of  the  churches  or  chapels  that  may  belong 
to,  and  form  a  part  of  the  said  corporation." 

The  Legislature  of  this  State  have,  therefore,  repeat- 
edly recognized  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  as  a 
legal,  valid,  and  subsisting  corporation. 

It  is,  however,  urged,  that  the  annual  income  of  the 
corporation  greatly  exceeds  the  amount  at  which  it  is 
limited  by  the  original  charter,  and  by  legislative  enact- 
ments binding  upon  said  corporation.  The  Commis- 
sioners of  the  Land  Office  are  not  apprised  of  the 
amount  of  this  income ;  but  it  is  probably  true  that  it 
exceeds  the  sum  of  five  thousand  pounds  mentioned  in 
the  original  charter.  It  is  not,  however,  pretended  that 
the  property  now  owned  by  Trinity  Church  would  have 
produced  anything  like  an  income  of  five  thousand 
pounds  when  it  was  conveyed  to  the  corporation.  The 
present  large  income  arises  from  the  great  appreciation 

•  Laws  of  that  Session,  p.  5. 


OP  THE  LANB  OFFICE. 


15 


of  the  lands  conveyed  to  the  corporation  by  the  lease  of 
1V05,  not,  as  is  understood,  by  any  acquisition  of  prop- 
erty since  that  time.  It  is,  however,  not  supposed  that 
any  forfeiture  of  charter  or  income,  whatever  may  be 
the  amount  of  such  income,  can  follow  from  this  rise  in 
value  of  the  real  estate  owned  by  the  corporation. 
{8ee  2  Inst.  V22.)  This  principle  is  plainly  recognized 
in  the  6th  section  of  the  act  of  25th  January,  1814,  (3 
R.  8.  299,)  which  declares,  "that  in  every  case  where 
a  church  or  religious  society  which  has  been,  or  may  be, 
duly  incorporated,  shall  have  exhibited  such  account 
and  inventory  as  is  specified  in  the  ninth  [tenth]  sec- 
tion of  the  act,  entitled  'An  act  to  provide  for  the 
incorporation  of  religious  societies,'  it  shall  not  be  ne- 
cessary for  such  church  or  society  again  to  exhibit  any 
account  and  inventory,  unless  the  said  church  or  society^ 
sibbsequently  to  such  exhibition,  shall  have  purchased  or 
acquired  any  lands,  tenements,  or  hereditaments,  luithin 
this  Stated 

In  conclusion,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land  Office 
are  of  opinion, 

1.  That  "  The  Hector,  Church-  Wardens,  and  Vestry- 
men of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New-  Yorh^''  are 
a  valid  corporation,  with  full  power  to  hold  the  real  es- 
tate which  has  been  referred  to. 

2.  That  it  has  a  valid,  subsisting  and  absolute  title  to 
the  lands  referred  to. 


16 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSIONERS,  &C. 


3.  That  it  also  is  entitled  to  the  rents  and  profits  of 
said  lands,  without  any  regard  to  the  amount  of  income 
which  they  may  yield. 

Which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

S.  BEAEDSLEY, 
JOHN  A.  DIX, 
A.  C.  FLAGG. 
A.  KEYSER, 
WILLIAM  CAMPBELL. 


Albany,  May  12th,  1836. 


state  of  Nctu-ffiark. 


No.  63. 


IN  SENATE, 

Mae.  26,  1853. 


MEMORIAL 

Of  the  Rector^  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of 
Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New-  YorTc. 

To  the  Honorable  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New-York  : 

The  memorial  of  the  Rector,  Cliurcli  Wardens  and 
Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  oT  New- York, 

Respectfully  Shows: 

That  your  memorialists  have  seen  a  copy  of  certain 
petitions  addressed  to  your  honorable  body  by  Christo- 
pher C.  Kiersted  and  others,  on  the  subject  of  an  action 
pending  in  the  Supreme  Court,  brought  by  the  said 
Kiersted  against  your  memorialists,  sundry  of  their  offi- 
cers, and  the  People  of  the  State  of  New- York. 

The. professed  object  of  the  said  petition  is  to  obtain 
the  passage  of  a  law,  by  which  a  preference  may  be 
given  to  the  said  action,  so  as  to  expedite  the  final  de- 
cision. 

2 


18 


MEMOEIAL. 


Your  tnemorialists  interpose  no  objection  to  a  gen- 
eral law  by  which  a  preference  shall  be  given  in  all 
courts  to  actions  in  which  the  People  of  the  State  are 
parties  or  are  interested.  On  the  contrary,  your  memo- 
rialists fervently  desire  such  a  law,  if  it  will  have  any 
effect  in  terminating  the  litigation  which  has  been  for 
twenty-two  years  and  upwards  maintained  by  the  coun- 
sel for  Mr.  Kiersted  in  his  name,  and  in  the  names  of 
other  persons  pretending  some  claim  upon  the  property 
of  your  memorialists,and  which  has  heretofore  invaria- 
bly terminated  in  the  defeat  and  failure  of  all  such  claims. 

But  your  memorialists  doubt  whether  it  would  be  ex- 
pedient, by  a  special  law,  to  recognise  the  principle  that 
the  State  has  properly  been  sued  in  one  of  its  own 
courts ;  a  general  law,  properly  framed,  would  avoid 
such  a  recognition.  ^ 

But  the  real  object  of  the  petitioners  would  appear 
to  be,  to  excite  suspicion  of  the  title  of  your  memorialists 
to  a  large  portion  of  the  real  estate  they  have  held  and 
enjoyed  without  any  successful  molestation  for  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years,  under  a  grant  from  the  Sovereign 
of  Great  Britain.  A  further  object  appears  to  be,  to  in- 
duce the  belief  that  the  State  has  a  valid  claim  to  some 
portion  of  the  same  property,  and  by  appeals  to  cupidity, 
endeavor  to  enlist  the  efforts  of  the  Legislature  and  pub- 
lic officers  in  co-operation  with  the  petitioner,  Kiersted, 
and  his  counsel,  to  despoil  your  memorialists.  The  long 
and  very  inaccurate  statement  of  transactions  and  assu- 


MEVrORIAL. 


19 


med  facts  whicli  make  tlie  petition  so  voluminous,  was 
not  at  all  necessary  or  even  useful  to  promote  the  profes- 
sed object,  and  could  only  have  been  inserted,  as  it  ap- 
pears to  your  memorialists,  for  the  purposes  above  indi- 
cated. 

To  alloTV  such  a  statement  to  remain  among  the  pub- 
lic archives  of  the  State  without  any  answer,  contradic- 
tion or  explanation  by  your  memorialists,  might  furnish 
new  material  for  the  petitioner  and  his  counsel  to  ques- 
tion the  rights  of  your  memorialists. 

Your  memorialists,  therefore,  and  for  the  sole  pur- 
pose of  excluding  any  conclusion  or  inference  from  their 
silence,  hostUe  to  their  rights  and  interests,  beg  leave 
to  lay  before  your  honorable  body  a  few  facts  and  refer- 
ences to  public  documents  and  proceedings,  which  will 
place  the  claim  and  pretences  of  the  j)etitioner5  in  their 
true  light,  and  which  will  exhibit  the  absurdity  of  the 
pretext  of  any  claim,  right,  or  interest  of  the  State  in 
any  property  held  by  your  memorialists. 

I.  By  a  patent  recorded  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary 
of  State,  in  Book  of  Patents,  No.  7,  page  388,  &c.,  dated 
the  23d  day  of  November,  in  the  year  1705,  there  was 
granted  to  the  corporation  represented  by  your  memo- 
rialists, forever,  by  the  then  Governor  of  the  Colony  of 
New-York,  the  tracts  of  land  in  the  city  of  New- York 
then  known  as  the  Duke's  farm  and  the  Queen's  farm, 
and  the  tract  known  as  the  Queen's  garden,  at  a  perpet- 
ual rent  of  thi"ee  shillings  current  money  of  New- York 
annually. 


20  lIESrOEIAL. 

II.  A  recognition  and  confirmation  of  that  grant  by 
Queen  Anne  on  the  14th  of  April,  1Y14,  the  original  of 
which  has  been  repeatedly  produced  in  the  courts  of 
this  State,  and  particularly  in  the  controversies  with  the 
petitioner,  Kiersted,  and  his  associates.  It  seems  to 
have  been  deemed  convenient  by  the  petitioners  to  omit 
all  notice  of,  or  allusion  to,  these  papers  in  their  petition. 

III.  A  report  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land  Office, 
dated  May  12, 1836,  signed  by  Samuel  Beardsley,  John 
A.  Dix,  A.  C.  riagg,  A.  Keyser  and  William  Campbell, 
made  in  pursuance  of  a  reference  to  them  by  the  House 
of  Assembly,  on  the  30th  of  March,  1835  ;  in  which  re- 
port the  title  of  your  memorialists  to  the  lands  mention- 
ed in  the  petition  called  the  Duke's  farm,  the  Queen's 
farm,  and  the  King's  or  Queen's  garden,  was  fully  inves- 
tigated, and  also  the  right  of  your  memorialists  to  hold 
property  yielding  a  greater  income  at  that  time  than 
was  prescribed  in  the  charter  of  the  corporation.  The 
conclusions  of  the  commissioners  are  thus  stated  by 
them : 

"  1st.  That  '  the  Rector,  Church  Wardens  and  Vestry- 
men of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New- York,'  are  a 
valid  corporation,  with  full  power  to  hold  the  real  estate 
which  has  been  referred  to. 

"  2d.  That  it  has  a  valid,  subsisting  and  absolute  title 
to  the  lands  referred  to. 

"  3d.  That  it  also  is  entitled  to  the  rents  and  profits 


ME3I0EIAL. 


21 


of  said  lands,  without  any  regard  to  tlie  amount  of  in- 
come which  they  may  yield." 

IV.  During  more  than  twenty  years  past,  different 
persons,  claiming  by  the  same  title  as  the  petitioner, 
have  commenced  suits  in  the  courts  of  this  State  for  the 
recovery  of  the  real  estate  held  by  your  memorialists, 
under  the  said  patent  and  confirmation. 

Previous  to  1830,  one  Bogardus,  claiming,  as  the  peti- 
tioner does,  to  be  an  heir  of  Anneke  Jans,  commenced 
proceedings  in  the  Court  of  Chancery  against  your  me- 
morialists to  recover  a  part  of  the  Queen's  farm.  The 
case  was  elaborately  argued,  and  decided  in  favor  of 
your  memoriahsts  by  the  late  Chancellor  "Walworth. 
(See  4th  Paige's  Reports,  178.)  It  "was  carried  by  appeal 
to  the  Court  for  Correction  of  Errors,  where  the  decision 
of  the  Chancellor  was  affirmed.  (See  15th  "Wendell's 
Eeports,  page  111.) 

Scarcely  had  the  above  suit  been  determined,  when 
another  was  commenced  by  one  Jonas  Humbert,  also 
claiming  as  an  heir  of  Anneke  Jans.  The  complainant's 
bill  was  demurred  to,  whereby  all  that  he  thought  proper 
to  set  forth  was  admitted,*  the  demurrer  was  sustained 
by  the  Chancellor,  and  the  bill  was  dismissed.  (See  7th 
Paige's  Reports,  page  195.)  This  also  was  carried  by 
appeal  to  the  Court  for  the  Correction  of  Errors,  and 
the  decision  of  the  Chancellor  was  sustained  by  the 


*  See  2d  note  on  page  23. 


22 


MEMORIAL. 


unanimous  vote  of  the  members  of  the  coiwt.  (See  24th 
Wendell's  Keports,  page  587.) 

An  issue  of  fact  was  afterwards  made  in  the  name  of 
Bogardus,  claiming  as  an  heir  of  Anneke  Jans,  in  his 
suit  in  the  Court  of  Chancery  above  mentioned,  by  his 
filing  a  replication  to  the  plea  therein  ;  which  was  deci- 
ded against  the  complainant  by  the  late  Vice-Chancellor 
Sanford,  upon  fnll,  complete,  and  overwhelming  testimo- 
ny on  the  part  of  the  defendants.  (See  4th  Sanford's 
Chancery  Reports,  page  633.'"')  From  that  decision  no 
appeal  was  taken. 

Nine  other  suits  were  brought  in  the  Supreme  Court 
by  one  Cornelius  Brouwer,  in  1847,  shortly  after  the  de- 
cision in  the  last  mentioned  cause,  claiming  as  an  heir  of 
Anneke  Jans,  and  after  the  causes  were  at  issue,  the 
plaintiff  submitted  to  a  nonsuit. 

The  exceedingly  able,  learned,  and  elaborate  opinions 
of  Justice  Cowen,  in  24th  Wendell,  587,  and  of  Vice 
Chancellor  Sandford,  in  4th  Sandford's  Chancery  Re- 
ports, 633,  cover  the  whole  ground,  and  will  richly  repay, 
by  their  perusal,  any  time  that  may  be  occupied  in  inves- 
tigating the  grounds  of  the  pretended  claims. 

It  was  supposed  that  these  repeated  decisions,  of  one 
uniform  tenor,  would  have  extinguished  all  hoj)es  of 
success  among  the  claimants. 

*  Idem.  p.  3G9. 


I 


MEMORIAL.  23 

But  it  was  reserved  for  tlie  fertile  genius  of  the  coun- 
sel, wlio  had  commenced  and  conducted  all  these  suits, 
(except  those  of  Brouwer  in  the  Supreme  Court'^')  to  de- 
vise a  new  form  of  proceeding,  and  the  petitioner,  Kier- 
^  sted,  was  brought  into  the  field,  in  whose  name  an  ac- 
tion was  brought  in  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  of  the 
city  of  New- York,  in  July,  1851,  against  your  memo- 
rialists, upon  the  old  claim  of  being  an  heir  of  Anneke 
Jans.  To  his  complaint  in  this  action,  your  memorial- 
ists demurred,  thereby  admitting  all  his  allegations.! 
For  some  reason  which  your  memorialists  cannot  ex- 
plain, another  action  was  brought  by  the  same  counsel 
in  the  name  of  the  same  Kiersted,  against  your  memo- 
rialists, in  the  Supreme  Court,  in  April,  1852,  while  the 
action  in  the  Common  Pleas  was  pending.  The  com- 
plainant was  compelled  to  elect  between  his  actions,  and 
he  abandoned  that  in  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas. 
Your  memorialists  again  demurred  to  the  complaint,  and 
there  the  matter  rests  for  the  present.  Had  the  plain- 
tiff elected  to  continuQ  his  suit  in  the-New-York  Common 
Pleas,  it  could,  from  the  then  state  of  business  in  that 
court,  have  been  brought  to  a  hearing  long  since. 

This  brief  history  of  the  proceedings  against  your 

*  That  of  Humbert  should  also  have  been  excepted. 

t  The  demurrer  is  a  technical  admission,  as  it  were,  for  the  sake  of  the 
argument.  It  is  never  taken  as  establishing  the  facts  alleged  by  the  oppo- 
site party;  on  the  contrary,  after  the  demurrer  is  decided,  his  allegations 
may  be  denied  and  disproved,  or  shown  to  be  unproved. 


24 


MEMORIAL. 


memorialists,  and  of  the  present  proceedings,  will  prob- 
ably enable  your  honorable  body,  and  all  others,  to  de- 
termine what  the  probabilities  are  of  future  success,  and 
what  grounds  of  claim  exist  against  your  memorialists, 
either  by  the  heirs  of  Anneke  Jans  or  by  the  State. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

By  order  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  the 
city  of  New-Tork. 


[  L.  S.  ] 


Dated  March  2Uh,  A.  D.  1853. 


Mem. — In  1854  a  similar  petition  was  presented,  and  the  following  Act 
was  passed  without  opposition,  it  being,  in  fact,  as  stated  in  the  preceding 
Memorial  of  the  Vestry,  very  desirable  that  a  hearing  and  decision  of  the 
cause  should  be  had  as  soon  as  possible.  But  that  was  not  the  real  object 
of  the  petitioners  for  the  Act.  The  defendants  had  to  push  on  the  argument 
against  the  obstacles  that  are  usually  interposed  by  unwilling  parties  and 
ingenious  counsel.  The  cause  was  heard  in  November,  and  decided  on 
9th  April,  1855.    The  Bill  was  dismissed,  with  costs. 


AN  ACT 

To  authorize  a  more  speedy  Trial  and  Termination  of  a 
certain  Suit  pending  against  the  People  of  this  State, 

and  others  Passed  April  15th,  1854. 

The  People  of  the  State  of  New-  York,  represented  in  Senate  and 
Assembly^  do  enact  as  follows  : — 

§  1.  The  Attorney  General  of  this  State  is  hereby 
authorized  to  call  for  trial  and  argument,  a  certain  suit, 
now  pending  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  First  District, 
wherein  Christopher  C.  Kiersted  is  plaintiff,  and  the 
Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  and  the  PeojDle  of  this 
State  are  defendants,  at  any  term  of  said  court,  or  of 
the  Court  of  Appeals  of  this  State,  in  its  present  and 
all  its  future  stages,  in  preference  to  any  other  suit  or 


26 


AN  ACT  FOE  SPEEDY  TRIAL  OP  SUIT. 


suits  on  the  calendar  of  eitlier  of  the  said  courts  ;  and 
the  same  preference  shall  be  given  to  any  other  suit  or 
proceeding  which  the  Attorney  General  may  deem  it 
expedient  to  institute,  with  a  view  to  ascertain,  adjust, 
or  enforce  the  rights  of  the  State,  either  as  against  the 
said  Kiersted,  or  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  or 
other  claimants. 


Mem. — The  proceedings  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land  Office,  men- 
tioned in  the  next  document,  are  alluded  in  the  second  prefatory  note  on 
back  of  title,  which  was  printed  before  it  was  known  that  on  the  2d  March 
they  had  revoked  their  former  action  in  the  matter.    [Vide  p.  31.] 

0tatc  0f  JQ'ctu-gork. 


No.  21. 


IN  SENATE, 

Jan.  22,  1855. 


COMMUNICATION 

From  the  Attorney  General  in  anstoer  to  a  resohition  of 
•  the  Senate. 

The  Attorney  General  has  received  tlie  following 
resolution  of  the  Senate : 

"  He-solved^  That  the  Attorney  General  be  requested 
to  inform  the  Senate  whether  he  has,  since  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  Legislature  of  1854,  commenced- any  suit  on 
"behalf  of  the  people  of  this  State,  against  the  Corpora- 


28 


COMMUNICATION. 


ration  of  Trinity  Churcli ;  and  if  any  suit  has  been  or  is 
about  to  be  commenced,  that  he  be  requested  to  com- 
municate to  the  Senate  his  authority  or  reason  for  such 
proceedings." 

And  in  reply  thereto,  respectfully  submits  the  follow- 
ing :— 

No  such  suit  has  been  commenced.  The  authority  to 
commence  such  suit  is  given  by  the  resolutions  of  the 
Board  of  Land  Commissioners,  passed  June  10th,  1854, 
and  amended  August  31st,  1854,  a  copy  of  which  is 
hereunto  annexed;  by  reference  to  which  it  will  be  seen, 
that  such  authority  depends  upon  certain  conditions  to 
be  performed  on  the  part  of  the  i-elator  or  memorialist 
named  in  the  said  resolutions.  Those  conditions  not 
having  been  complied  with  on  his  part,  as  neither  the 
evidence  nor  the  bond  required  has  been  furnished 
to  the  Attorney  General,  no  proceedings  have  been 
instituted  by  him  in  pursuance  of  the  authority  confer- 
red by  the  said  resolutions. 

Eespectfully  submitted,  &c. 

■     OGDEN  HOFFMAN, 

Attorney  General. 


PEOCEEDnTGS 


29 


At  a  meeting  of  the  Commissioner's  of  the  Land  Office,  at 
the  Secretary's  Office,  June  10,  1854  : 

Present — E.  W.  Leavenworth,  Secretary  of  State ; 
James  M.  Cook,  Comptroller;  Robert  H.  Pruyn,  Speaker 
of  Assembly ;  John  T.  Clark,  State  Engineer  and  Sur- 
veyor. 

The  memorial  of  Rutger  B.  Miller,  on  behalf  of  him- 
self and  others,  setting"  forth  that  they  are  in  possession 
of  evidence  showing  that  the  title  of  the  property  called 
the  King's  farm,  in  the  city  of  New- York,  and  claimed 
by  Trinity  Church,  is  vested  in  the  People  of  the  State 
of  New- York,  and  offering  to  guarantee  the  State  against 
all  expenditures  of  cost  and  expenses  of  suit,  in  case  the 
Attorney  General  should  deem  it  expedient  to  exercise 
the  powers  conferred  upon  him  by  the  act  of  April  15, 
1854,  chap.  280,  the  consideration  of  the  guarantee  to 
be  one  quarter  of  the  land  recovered  according  to  its 
value,  was  read :  Thereupon, 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Board,  the  At- 
torney General  should  commence  a  suit  to  test  the  title 
of  this  State  to  the  King's  farm,  provided  the  State  shall 
be  indemnified  agreeably  to  the  Statute  in  such  case 
made  and  provided,  against  all  costs  growing  out  of  the 
same,  and  to  the  satisfaction  of  this  Board :  Provided, 
however,  that  before  such  suit  shall  be  commenced,  the 
proper  evidence  showing  the  title  of  the  State  to  the 
said  farm  should  be  shown  and  lodged  with  the  Attor- 


30 


PROCEEDINGS 


ney  General ;  and  provided,  also,  that  said  suit  shall  not 
be  settled  or  discontinued  without  the  consent  and 
sanction  of  this  Board. 

JResoT/ved,  also,  That  in  the  event  of  a  recovery,  the 
person  or  persons  furnishing  the  evidence  on  which  such 
recovery  shaU  be  had,  shall  be  entitled  to  such  per  cent- 
age  on  the  amount  recovered,  as  is  provided  by  the  laws 
of  this  State. 

The  question  being  taken  on  the  adoption  of  the  above 
resolutions,  Messrs.  E.  W.  Leavenworth,  Pruyn  and 
Cook,  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and  Mr.  Clark  in  the 
negative. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land  Office,  at 
the  Secretary's  Office,  August  31,  1854: 

Present — E.  "W.  Leavenworth,  Secretary  of  State ; 
Sanford  E.  Church,  Lieut.  Governor ;  James  M.  Cook, 
Comptroller ;  E.  G.  Spaulding,  Treasurer ;  Robert  H. 
Pruyn,  Speaker  of  Assembly. 

Paper  marhed  A. 

Resolved,  That  the  proceedings  of  this  Board,  of  June 
10, 1854,  in  regard  to  the  memorial  of  Rutger  B.  Miller, 
be  so  amended,  as  to  substitute  for  the  second  resolution 
the  following : 

Resolved,  That  by  virtue  of  the  authority  conferred 
upon  this  Board  by  sections  one  and  six,  title  four,  chap- 
ter nine,  part  first  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  in  regard  to 


OF  THE  LA^T)  OFFICE. 


31 


lands  of  the  State  belonging  to  the  Common  School  ^ 
Fund,  the  person  or  persons  furnishing  the  evidence 
upon  which  such  recovery  shall  be  had,  shall  be  entitled 
to  the  per  centage  of  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the  value 
of  lands  recovered,  as  heretofore  allowed  by  the  laws  of 
this  State  in  cases  of  escheat. 

He-solved,  That  the  amount  of  the  bond  of  indemnity 
referred  to  in  the  first  resolution  of  June  10,  1854,  be, 
and  the  same  is  hereby  &xed  at  five  thousand  dollars, 
with  security,  to  be  approved  by  the  Comptroller,  and 
that  the  State  will  in  no  event  be  liable  for  counsel  fees 
paid  or  incurred  on  behalf  of  the  State  in  said  litigation. 


At  a  meeting  of  the  Commissioners  of  tlie  Land  Office^  at 
the  Secretary's  Office^  March  2f/,  1855  : 

Present — Elias  W.  Leavenworth,  Secretary  of  State ; 
Henry  J.  Eaymond,  Lieut.  Governor ;  James  M.  Cook, 
Comptroller ;  Elbridge  G.  Spaulding,  Treasurer ;  Ogdon 
Hoffinan,  Attorney  General. 

"Whereas,  the  Attorney  General  having  submitted  to 
this  Board  the  testimony  in  regard  to  the  title  of  Trinity 
Church  to  the  King's  farm,  which  was  furnished  to  him 
by  Eutger  B.  IMiller,  and  the  same  being  unsatisfactory, 

Resolved^  That  the  resolution  of  June  10th,  1854, 
directing  the  commencement  of  a  suit,  and  that  of  Au- 
gust 31st,  1854,  in  relation  to  the  bond,  be,  and  the 
same  are,  hereby  rescinded. 


32 


PROCEEDINGS  OP  THE  LAND  OFFICE. 


State  of  JVetv-  York,  ) 
Secretarxfs  Office.  J 

I  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a  true  extract  from  the 
minutes  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land  Office.  Dated 
Albany,  April  6th,  1855. 

A.  G.  JOHNSON, 

Deputy  Secretary  of  State,  aiid 
Cterlc  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land  Office 


INDEX. 


Page 


Prefatory  Notes   2 

Eeport  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land  OiEce  in  1836   3 

Memorial  of  the  Corporation  to  the  Legislature  in  1853  17 

The  Act  to  authorize  a  more  speedy  Trial  and  Termination  of  a  certain 

«       Suit  25 

Communication  of  the  Attorney  General  to  the  Senate  in  1855  27 

Proceedings  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land  Office  in  1854  29 

Same,  in  1855,  rescinding  those  of  1854. . . .,  31 


No.  63. 


IN  SEMTE.  MAR.  26,  1853. 


MEMORIAL 

Of  the  rector,  chuich  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trini- 
ty Church  in  the  city  of  New- York. 

To  the  Honorable  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  J\''eio-York  : 

The  memorial  of  the  Rector  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen 
of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of  New- York, 

Respectfully  Shows  : 

That  your  memorialists  have  seen  a  copy  of  certain  petitions 
addressed  to  your  honorable  body  by  Christopher  C.  Kiersted  and 
others,  on  the  subject  of  an  action  pending  in  the  Supreme  Court, 
brought  by  the  said  Kiersted  against  your  memorialists,  sundry  of 
their  oflftcers,  and  the  people  of  the  State  of  New- York. 

The  professed  object  of  the  said  petition  is  to  obtain  the  pas- 
sage of  a  law  by  which  a  preference  may  be  given  to  the  said  ac- 
tion, so  as  to  expedite  the  final  decision. 

Your  memorialists  interpose  no  objection  to  a  general  law  by 
which  a  preference  shall  be  given  in  all  courts  to  actions  in  which 
the  people  of  the  State  are  parties  or  are  interested.  On  the  con- 
trary, your  memorialists  fervently  desire  such  a  law,  if  it  will 
have  any  effect  in  terminating  the  litigation  which  has  been  for 
twenty-two  years  and  upwards  maintained  by  the  counsel  for  Mr. 
Kiersted  in  his  name,  and  in  the  names  of  other  persons  pretend- 
ing some  claim  upon  the  property  of  your  memorialists,  and  which 
has  heretofore  invariably  terminated  in  the  defeat  and  failure  of 
all  such  claims. 

[Senate,  No.  63.]  1 


2 


[Senate 


But  your  memorialists  doubt  whether  it  would  be  expedient,  by 
a  special  law,  to  recognise  the  principle  that  the  State  has  proper- 
ly been  sued  in  one  of  its  own  courts  ;  a  general  law,  properly 
framed,  would  avoid  such  a  recognition. 

But  the  real  object  of  the  petitioners  would  appear  to  be  to  ex- 
cite suspicion  of  the  title  of  your  memorialists  to  a  large  portion 
of  the  real  estate  they  have  held  and  enjoyed  without  any  suc- 
cessful molestation  for  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  under  a  grant 
from  the  Sovereign  of  Great  Britain.  A  further  object  appears 
to  be  to  induce  the  belief  that  the  State  has  a  valid  claim  to  some 
portion  of  the  same  property,  and  by  appeals  to  cupidity,  endea- 
vor to  enlist  the  efforts  of  the  Legislature  and  public  officers  in 
co-operation  with  the  petitioner,  Kiersted,  and  his  counsel,  to  de- 
spoil your  memorialists.  The  long  and  very  inaccurate  state- 
ment of  transactions  and  assumed  facts  which  makes  the  petition 
so  voluminous,  was  not  at  all  necessary  or  even  useful  to  promote 
the  professed  object,  and  could  only  have  been  inserted,  as  it  ap- 
pears to  your  memorialists,  for  the  purposes  above  indicated. 

To  allow  such  a  statement  to  remain  among  the  public  archives 
of  the  State  without  any  answer,  contradiction  or  explanation  by 
your  memorialists,  might  furnish  new  material  for  the  petitioner 
and  his  counsel  to  question  the  rights  of  your  memorialists. 

Your  memorialists,  therefore,  and  for  the  sole  purpose  of  exclu- 
ding any  conclusion  or  inference  from  their  silence,  hostile  to  their 
rights  and  interests,  beg  leave  to  lay  before  your  honorable  body 
a  few  facts  and  references  to  public  documents  and  proceedings, 
which  will  place  the  claim  and  pretences  of  the  petitioners  in 
their  true  light,  and  which  will  exhibit  the  absurdity  of  the  pre- 
text of  any  claim,  right  or  interest  of  the  State  in  any  property 
held  by  your  memorialists. 

I.  By  a  patent  recorded  in  the  oflSice  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 
in  book  of  patents  No.  7,  page  388,  &c.,  dated  the  23d  day  of  No- 
vember, in  the  year  1705,  there  was  granted  to  the  corporation 
represented  by  your  memorialists,  forever,  by  the  then  Governor 
of  the  Colony  of  New- York,  the  tracts  of  land  in  the  city  of  New- 
York  then  known  as  the  Duke's  farm  and  the  Queen's  farm,  and 


No.  63.] 


3 


the  tract  known  as  the  Queen's  garden,  at  a  perpetual  rent  of 
three  shillings  current  money  of  New- York  annually. 

II.  A  recognition  and  confirmation  of  that  grant  by  Queen  Anne 
on  the  14th  of  April,  1714,  the  original  of  which  has  been  repeat- 
edly produced  in  the  courts  of  this  State,  and  particularly  in  the 
controversies  with  the  petitioner,  ELiersted,  and  his  associates.  It 
seems  to  have  been  deemed  convenient  by  the  petitioners  to  omit 
all  notice  of,  or  allusion  to,  these  papers  in  their  petition. 

III.  A  report  of  the  commissioners  of  the  land  oflftce,  dated 
May  12,  1836,  signed  by  Samuel  Beardsley,  John  A.  Dix,  A.  C. 
Flagg,  A.  Keyser  and  William  Campbell,  made  in  pursuance  of 
a  reference  to  them  by  the  House  of  Assembly,  on  the  30th  of 
March,  1835  ;  in  which  report  the  titleof  your  memorialists  to  the 
lands  mentioned  in  the  petition  called  the  Duke's  farm,  the 
Queen's  farm,  and  the  King's  or  Queen's  garden,  was  fully  inves- 
tigated, and  also  the  right  of  your  memorialists  to  hold  property 
yielding  a  greater  income  a^  that  time  than  was  prescribed  in  the 
charter  of  the  corporation.  The  conclusions  of  the  commissioners 
are  thus  stated  by  them  : 

"  1st.  That  '  the  Rector  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of 
Trinity  church,  in  the  city  of  New- York,'  are  a  valid  corporation 
with  full  power  to  hold  the  real  estate  which  has  been  referrea  to. 

"  2d.  That  it  has  a  valid,  subsisting  and  absolute  title  to  the 
lands  referred  to. 

"  3d.  That  it  also  is  entitled  to  the  rents  and  profits  of  said  lands, 
without  any  regard  to  the  amount  of  income  which  they  may 
yield." 

IV.  During  more  than  twenty  years  past,  different  persons 
claiming  by  the  same  title  as  the  petitioner,  have  commenced 
suits  in  the  courts  of  this  State  for  the  recovery  of  the  real  estate 
held  by  your  memorialists,  under  the  said  patent  and  confirma- 
tion. 

Previous  to  1830,  oneBogardus,  claiming  as  the  petitioner  does, 
to  be  an  heir  of  Anneke  Jans,  commenced  proceedings  in  the 


4 


[Senate 


Court  of  Chancery  against  your  memorialists  to  recover  a  part  of 
the  Queen's  farm  The  case  was  elaborately  argued,  and  decided 
in  favor  of  your  memorialists  by  the  late  Chancellor  Walworth. 
See  4th  Paige's  Reports,  178.  It  was  carried  by  appeal  to  the  Court 
for  the  Correction  of  Errors,  where  the  decision  of  the  Chancellor 
was  affirmed.    See  1 5th  Wendell's  Reports,  page  111. 

Scarcely  had  the  above  suit  been  determined,  when  another 
was  commenced  by  one  Jonas  Humbert,  also  claiming  as  an  heir 
of  Anneke  Jans.  The  complainant's  bill  was  demurred  to,  where- 
by all  that  he  thought  proper  to  set  forth  was  admitted,  the  de- 
murrer was  sustained  by  the  Chancellor  and  the  bill  was  dismis- 
sed. See  7th  Paige's  Reports,  page  195.  This  also  was  carried  by 
appeal  to  the  Court  for  the  Correction  of  Errors,  and  the  decision 
of  the  Chancellor  was  sustained  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the 
members  of  that  court.    See  24th  Wendell's  Reports,  page  587. 

An  issue  of  fact  was  afterwards  made  in  the  name  of  Bogardus, 
claiming  as  an  heir  of  Anneke  Jans,  in  his  suit  in  the  Court  of 
Chancery  above  mentioned,  by  his  filing  a  replication  to  the  plea 
therein ;  which  was  decided  against  the  complainant  by  the  late 
Vice-Chancellor  Sandford,  upon  full,  complete  and  overwhelming 
testimony  on  the  part  of  the  defendants.  See  4th  Sandford's 
Chancery  Reports,  page  633.  From  that  decision  no  appeal  was 
taken. 

Nine  other  suits  were  brought  in  the  Supreme  Court  by  one 
Cornelius  Brower  in  1847,  shortly  after  the  decision  in  the  last 
mentioned  cause,  claiming  as  an  heir  of  Anneke  Jans,  and  after 
the  causes  were  at  issue,  the  plaintiff  submitted  to  a  nonsuit. 

The  exceedingly  able,  learned  and  elaborate  opinions  of  Justice 
Cowen  in  24th  Wendell,  587,  and  of  Vice-Chancellor  Sandford  in 
4th  Sandford's  Chancery  Reports,  633,  cover  the  whole  ground, 
and  will  richly  repay  by  their  perusal  any  time  that  may  be  oc- 
cupied in  investigating  the  grounds  of  the  pretended  claims. 

It  was  supposed  that  these  repeated  decisions  of  one  uniform 
tenor,  would  have  extinguished  all  hopes  of  success  among  the 
claimants. 


No.  63.]  5     ■  * 

But  it  was  reserved  for  the  fertile  genius  of  the  counsel,  who 
had  commenced  and  conducted  all  these  suits  (except  those  of 
Brower  in  the  Supreme  Court)  to  devise  a  new  form  of  proceed- 
ing, and  the  petitioner,  Kiersted,  was  brought  into  the  field,  in 
whose  name  an  action  was  brought  in  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas 
of  the  City  of  New  York,  in  July,  1851,  against  your  memorialists 
upon  the  old  claim  of  being  an  heir  of  Anneke  Jans.  To  his  com- 
plaint in  this  action,  your  memorialists  demurred,  thereby  admit- 
ting all  his  allegations.  For  some  reason  which  your  memorial- 
ists can  not  explain,  another  action  was  brought  by  the  same 
counsel  in  the  name  of  the  same  Kiersted,  against  your  memorial- 
ists in  the  Supreme  Court,  in  April,  1852,  while  the  action  in  the 
Common  Pleas  was  pending.  The  complainant  was  compelled  to 
elect  between  his  actions,  and  he  abandoned  that  in  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas.  Your  memorialists  again  demurred  to  the  com- 
plaint, and  there  the  matter  rests  for  the  present.  Had  the  plain- 
tiff elected  to  continue  his  suit  in  the  New  York  Common  Pleas, 
it  could  from  the  then  state  of  business  in  that  court,  have  been 
brought  to  a  hearing  long  since. 

This  brief  history  of  the  proceedings  against  your  memorialists, 
and  of  the  present  proceedings,  will  probably  enable  your  honor- 
able body,  and  all  others,  to  determine  what  the  probabilities  are 
of  future  success,  and  what  grounds  of  claim  exist  against  your 
memorialists,  either  by  the  heirs  of  Anneke  Jans  or  by  the  State. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

By  order  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of 
New  York. 

WM.  E.  DUNSCOMB, 
Clerk  of  the  Vestry  and  Church  Warden. 

[  L-  s.  ]  WM.  H.  HARRISON, 

Comptroller  and  Church  Warden. 
Dated  March  2ith,  A.  D.  1853. 


REMARKS 


TRINITY  CHURCH  BILL, 


BEFORE 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  REVISION. 


BY  ROBERT  TROUP,  ESQ., 

ONE  OF  THE  VKSTKYMEN  OT  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


NEW-YORK: 
PRINTED  BY  T.  &  J.  SWORDS, 

No.  160  Pearl-street. 

1813. 

REPRINTED  BY  JAMES  A.  SPARKS, 

No.  161  Fulton-street,  opposite  St.  Paul's. 

1846. 


NOTE. 


These  "  Remarks  "  are  re-printed  from  a  copy  that,  with  man- 
uscript corrections  and  notes  came  from  Judge  Troup's  own  hand. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  same  alterations  and  additions 
were  made  upon  every  copy  that  was  authoritatively  issued.  They 
are  incorporated  in  the  present  edition.  A  few  references,  and 
two  or  three  brief  notes  with  brackets  [  ]  for  convenience  have 
been  added. 

New- York,  January,  1846. 


PREFACE 


TO  THIS  REPRINT. 


The  following  pamphlet  was  published  in  1813,  previous  to  the 
decision  of  the  leading  cases  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States 
and  of  this  State  respecting  State  laws  affecting  the  obligation  of 
contracts.  That  part  of  it  which  seems  to  maintain  the  power  of 
the  Legislature  to  vary  the  elective  franchise  in  corporations,  is 
therefore  not  expressed  with  that  precision  which  doubtless  would 
have  been  used  had  the  case  of  Dartmouth  College  vs.  Woodward, 
in  4th  Whea'-on's  Reports,  and  other  cases,  been  knovra  to  the  vm- 
ter.  The  distinction  is  now,  and  for  years  has  been,  settled  by 
those  cases,  between  public  and  private  corporations.  While  "  a 
"  grant  of  political  power — a  civil  institution  to  be  employed  in  the 
"  administration  of  the  government "  is  subject  to  legislative  con- 
trol,— yet  a  private  "  eleemosynary  institution  incorporated  for  the 
"  puipose  of  perpetuating  the  application  of  the  bounty  of  do- 
"  nors "  to  public  and  charitable  purposes,  possesses  franchises 
which  are  the  subject  of  a  contract  between  the  government  and  the 
parties  incorporated,  so  that  they  cannot  be  repealed  or  altered  by 
a  State  legislature.  The  case  referred  to  by  Judge  Troup,  extend- 
ing the  right  to  vote  for  charter- officers  in  New-York,  if  justifiable 
at  all,  is  to  be  maintained  on  the  ground  of  this  distinction,  that  the 
corporation  of  that  city  is  a  public  one — a  mere  ci\'il  institution  em- 
ployed in  the  administration  of  the  government ;  and  of  course,  the 
case  is  not  applicable  to  a  private  corporation.  Judge  Troup  was 
not  contending  for  the  authority  of  the  Legislature  to  alter  the  qual- 
ifications of  the  electors  or  corporators  of  Trinity  Church  ;  he  had 
already  demonstrated  that  the  act  of  1814  made  no  alteration,  but 
his  object  was  to  satisfy  the  Council  of  Revision,  that  conceding 
for  the  sake  of  argument  the  point  assumed  in  the  objections  re- 
ported to  the  Council — viz.,  that  "the  limibation  of  the  right  of 
"  election  provided  by  the  bill  "  (of  1814)  "  may  divest  or  impaii"  " 
existing  rights  of  corporators,  he  proceeds  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  Council  to  the  great  difference  between  the  case  that  had  been 
cited  in  those  obiections  2s  anaJogous  of  a  clear  violation  of 


CONTENTS. 


Pag  k 

1 .  Remarks  on  the  Bill  entitled,  "  An  Act  to  alter  the  name 

of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  New-York,  and 
for  other  purposes.  .  .  .  .  .4 

2.  Charter  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church.       .  .  39 

3.  An  act  for  making  such  alterations  in  the  Charter  of  the 

Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  as  to  render  it  more  con- 
formable to  the  Constitution  of  the  State.  .  .  56 

4.  An  act  to  enable  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the 

city  of  New-York,  to  assume  the  name  therein  men- 
tioned.     .  .  .  .  .  .  .62 

•5.  An  act  to  alter  the  Name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity 

Church  in  New-York,  and  for  other  j^urposes.  .  63 

6.  Memorial  of  Thomas  Farmar  and  Benjamin  Ferris,  for  them- 

selves and  others,  to  the  Legislature.    .  .  .67 

7.  Resolution  of  the  House  of  Assembly  referring  the  Bill  to 

the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General.    .  .  .68 

8.  Report  of  the  Attorney  General.   .  .  .  .68 

9.  Objection  of  the  Council  of  Revision  to  tlie  Bill  entitled 

"  An  Act  granting  Relief  in  certain  cases  to  the  Inhabit- 
"  ants  of  the  Town  of  Brooklyn,  in  Kings  county  ;"  re- 
ferred to  by  the  Council  in  their  first  objection  to  Trinity 
Church  Bill.   60 


REMARKS 


On  the  Bill  entitled  "  An  Act  to  alter  the  Name  of 
the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  and  for  other 
Purposes. 

The  Bill  was  popular  in  both  Houses  of  the  Leg- 
islature, and  it  passed  by  large  majorities.  Certain 
objections  were,  notwithstanding,  reported  against  it 
in  the  Council  of  Revision ;  and  these  remain  to  be 
acted  upon  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  Council.  Two 
members  of  that  Honorable  Body  were  pleased  to  ex- 
press a  desire  that  the  subscriber  would  furnish  them 
with  his  reasons  in  support  of  the  bill  5  and,  in  compli- 
ance with  this  desire,  the  following  remarks  are  most 
respectfully  submitted. 

In  the  year  1697,  a  charter  was  granted  by  the 
Crown  of  Great  Britain  to  the  Episcopal  inhabitants 
of  the  city  of  New  York,  by  the  name  of  the  "  Rector 
"  and  Inhabitants  of  our  said  City  of  New  York,  in 
"  Communion  of  our  Protestant  Church  of  England, 
"  as  now  established  by  our  laws."  The  charter  or- 
dains, "  that  the  church  erected  and  built  and  situate 
"  in  and  near  the  street  called  the  Broadway,  within 
"  our  said  city  of  New  York,  and  the  ground  there- 
"  unto  adjoining,  enclosed,  and  used  for  a  church-yard 
"  or  cemetery,  shall  be  the  parish  church,  and  church- 
"yard  of  the  Parish  of  Trinifif  Church,  within  our 
"  said  city  of  New  York,  for  the  use  and  behoof  of 
"  the  inhabitants,  from  time  to  time,  inhabiting,  or  to 
"  inhabit  within  oar  said  city  of  New  York,  in  com- 
"munion  of  our  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as 
"  now  established  by  our  laws."*  And  also  "  that  the 
"said  charcli  and  cemetery,  or  church-yard,  shall  be 
"the  sole  and  only  parish  church  and  cemetery,  or 

[*  Vitle  Chaitei-,  jjost.  lines  141 — 155.] 


6 


"  church-yard,  of  our  said  city  of  New  York."*  And 
the  charter  further  ordains,  "  that  there  shall  he  annu- 
"  ally,  and  once  in  every  year  for  ever,  on  the  Tuesday 
'■'in  Easter  week,  two  church-wardens  and  twenty 
^  vestrymen  duly  elected  by  the  majority  of  votes  of 
"  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  parish  in  communion  as 
"  aforesaid."t  And  "  that  the  church-wardens,  for  the 
"  time  being,  shall  not,  at  any  time,  dispose  of  any  of 
"  the  pews  or  places  in  the  said  church,  to  any  person 
"  not  an  inhabitant  thereof,  nor  without  the  consent 
"  and  allowance  of  the  vestrymen  for  the  time  being, 
"  or  any  eleven  or  more  of  them."|  And  "  that  the 
"  rector  of  the  said  parish^  for  the  time  being,  shall 
"  and  may,  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  said  vestry- 
"  men  and  church-wardens,  for  the  time  being,  or  any 
"  eleven  or  more  of  them,  whereof  one  of  the  church- 
"  wardens  to  be  one,  from  time  to  time,  nominate  one 
"  able  protestant  minister,  in  priest's  orders,  to  reside 
"  in  the  said  parish.,  to  be  preacher  and  assistant  to  the 
"  said  rector  and  his  successors  in  the  celebration  of  the 
"  divine  service  of  praying  and  preaching,  and  other 
"duties  incident  to  be  performed  in  the  said  church 
"  or  parish.)  as  the  Rector  shall  require  of  him  5  and 
"  likewise  to  nominate  a  fit  person  to  he  clerk  of  the 
"  said  parish.)  and  one  or  more  sexton  or  sextons."*^ 

From  these  passages  of  the  charter  it  is  obvious 
that  the  charter  contemplates  the  city  of  New  York 
as  Composing  one  parish,  and  Trinity  Charch  as  the 
parish  church.,  to  be  governed  by  one  rector  and  one 
set  of  church-wardens  and  vestrymen.,  and  as  the 
church  in  which  the  parishioners  are  to  assemble 
and  worship. 

For  many  years,  after  the  charter  was  granted. 
Trinity  Church,  from  the  small  population  of  the  city. 


"*  Vide  Charter,  lines  499—503.] 
't    "    Idem,  lines  259— 263.J 
X    •'    Idem,    "  313—319.1 
'§    "    Idem    "  320—334.] 


7 


was  large  enough  to  contain  all  the  Episcopalians  of 
the  city  5  and,  of  course,  no  other  Episcopal  church 
was  erected ;  but,  as  the  numbers  of  the  city  increas- 
ed, it  was  found  necessary  to  provide  other  buildings 
for  public  worship  5  and  hence  St.  George''s  and  St. 
Paul's  chapels  were  erected  some  time  before  the 
Revolution. 

Chapels  by  the  practice  of  the  English  Church,  are 
of  two  kinds ;  the  one  adjoins  the  mother  church,  and 
is  part  of  it ;  the  other,  where  the  parish  is  large,  is 
separate  from  the  mother  church,  and  is  commonly 
called  a  chapel  of  ease  5  because  it  is  built  for  the  ease 
of  the  parishioners  living  at  a  distance  from  the  church. 
But  the  chapel  of  ease,  though  separate  from  the  moth- 
er church,  is  likewise  considered  as  part  of  it. 

The  Church-Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity 
Church,  following  the  example  of  their  EngUsh  ances- 
tors, founded  St.  George's  and  St.  Paul's  Churches,  as 
chapels  of  Trinity  Church.  The  natural  effect  of  this 
system  was,  that  these  three  churches  formed  one 
church — their  several  congregations  were  knit  into  one 
body— rand  the  communicants,  in  each  congregation, 
went,  on  Easter  Tuesday,  to  the  poll  of  Trinity 
Church,  and  voted  for  the  same  Church-Wardens  and 
Vestrymen;  and  these  by  their  office,  took  all  the 
churches  under  their  common  government. 

As  the  charter  incorporates  those  who  are  in  com- 
munion with  the  Church  of  England,  communicants 
alone,  before  the  Revolution,  were  admitted  to  the 
privilege  of  voting  for  charter  officers ;  and  the  records 
of  Trinity  Church  furnish  no  instance  of  a  contrary 
practice. 

Such,  before  the  Revolution,  was  the  condition  of 
Trinity  Church ;  in  which  there  certainly  was  nothing 
repugnant  to  the  prominent  ideas  pervading  the  whole 
charte.1 — that  the  city  should  constitute  one  entire 
parish — that  Trinity  Church  should  be  the  sole  par- 
ish church — and  that  one  Rector  should  have  charge 
of  the  parish. 


8 


After  the  Revolution  a  different  order  of  things 
arose ;  partly  from  the  principles  which  grew  out  of 
that  memorahle  epoch  ;  but  chiefly  from  the  quick 
growth  in  the  population  of  the  city. 

Many  friends  of  the  Revolution  believed  that  the 
right  of  voting,  for  Church-Wardens  and  Vestrymen 
of  Trinity  Church,  by  being  confined  wholly  to  the 
communicants,  stood  on  a  basis  too  narrow.  The 
influence  of  this  belief  determined  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  Episcopahans,  in  1784,  to  apply  to  the  Legisla- 
ture for  an  extension  of  the  right  of  voting,  so  as  to 
vest  it,  in  common  with  the  communicants,  in  the  pew 
and  seat  holders  who  should  regularly  pay  to  the  sup- 
port of  the  church.  The  Legislature  readily  granted 
the  extension ;  and,  for  a  long  time  afterwards,  the  pew 
and  seat-holders,  together  with  the  communicants  in 
Trinity  Church,  and  its  chapels,  were  received  as 
voters  at  the  elections  for  Church-Wardens  and  Ves- 
trymen. The  city^  in  reality,  during  such  period,  con- 
tinued, as  before  the  Revolution,  to  be  one  parish^  and 
Trinity  Church  the  sole  parish  church. 

At  length,  however,  it  came  to  pass  that  the  Epis- 
copalians, by  the  increased  population  of  the  city, 
were  too  numerous  to  be  accommodated  with  pews 
and  seats  in  Trinity  Church  and  its  chapels.  In  this 
situation  a  respectable  portion  of  Episcopalians  had 
recourse  to  the  act,  entitled,  "  An  Act  to  provide  for 
the  Incorporation  of  Religious  Societies,"  for  relief ; 
and,  in  the  year  1793,  they  incorporated  themselves, 
under  that  act,  by  the  name  of  "  Christ's  Church." 
The  precedent,  thus  set  by  the  corporators  of  Christ's 
Church,  led  other  portions  of  E[)iscopalians,  at  difl'erent 
times,  to  adopt  the  same  measure ;  and  thus  no  less 
than  nine  Episcopal  churches  have  lately  been  incor- 
porated on  New  York  island  5  in  which  number  is 
included  St.  George's  Church,  which,  until  its  incor- 
poration, was  one  of  the  chapels  of  Trinity  Church. 

All  these  churches  have  been  consecrated  in  the 
customary  form,  and  regularly  admitted  into  union 


9 


with  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State,  by  being 
received  as  distinct  and  independent  members  of  the 
State  Convention  *,  and,  accordingly,  each  of  them  has 
been  privileged  to  vote,  separately  from  Trinity 
Church,  on  every  question  agitated  in  the  Convention. 

The  members  of  the  new  corporations  elect  their 
own  Church-Wardens  and  Vestrymen ;  and  they  nei- 
ther hold  pews  or  seats  in  Trinity  Church  5  nor  do 
they  commune  in  that  church,  or  contribute  to  its 
support.  The  Vestries  of  the  new  corporations  ap- 
point their  own  Rectors,  Clerks,  and  Sextons;  and 
they  manage  all  the  spiritual  and  temporal  concerns 
of  their  churches  as  they  please  5  paying  no  regard 
whatever  to  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church. 

The  members  of  Trinity  Church  hold  no  pews  or 
seats  in  any  of  the  churches  built  by  the  new  corpora- 
tions ;  nor  do  they  commune  in  those  churches,  or  con- 
tribute to  their  support.*  The  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church 
has  never  claimed  a  right  to  interfere  with  the  elections 
of  the  new  corporations,  or  with  the  appointment  of 
their  Rectors,  Clerks,  or  Sextons,  or  with  any  other  of 
their  affairs,  whether  spiritual  or  temporal ;  nor  have 
the  members  of  Trinity  Church  ever  asserted  a  right  to 
vote  at  the  elections  of  the  new  corporations. 

As  a  consequence  of  the  new  incorporations,  the  con- 
gregation of  Trinity  Church  may  now  be  said  to  consist 
of  those  only  who  attend  worship  in  that  church  and  Us 
chapels,  St.  Paul's  Church  and  St.  John's  Church ;  the 
latter  having  been  recently  built  as  a  chapel  by  Trinity 
Church. 

The  new  corporations,  without  any  exception,  have 
received  liberal  donations  of  real  and  personal  estates 
from  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church ;  and  there  ap- 
pears to  subsist  between  the  new  churches  and  Trinity 

*  A  few  of  the  members  of  Trinity  Church,  who  reside  out  of 
town  in  the  summer  season,  have  pews  in  St.  Michael's  and  St. 
James's  Churches,  for  the  convenience  of  attending  pubUc  worship 
during  the  summer.  These  two  churches  are  some  miles  distant 
irom  the  centre  of  the  city. 


10 


Church,  the  same  cordiaHty  that  subsists  between  an  af- 
fectionate mother  and  her  equally  affectionate  children. 

It  is  true,  that  no  member  of  either  of  the  new  cor- 
porations ever  claimed,  or  pretended  to  claim,  a  right 
to  vote  for  the  Church- Wardens  and  Vestrj  men  of 
Trinity  Church  prior  to  the  election  held  for  those  of- 
ficers in  March,  1812.  At  that  election  several  persons, 
known  to  be  members  of  new  corporations,  oflered 
themselves  as  voters ;  but  they  were  rejected,  because 
neither  of  them  was  a  pew  or  seat-holder,  or  communi- 
cant, in  Trinity  Church,  or  either  of  its  chapels :  and 
one  of  these  persons,  after  the  bill  had  passed  the  Sen- 
ate, instituted  a  suit,  for  the  ostensible  purpose  of  trying 
his  claim ;  and  the  same  person  again  offered  to  vote 
at  the  election  held  in  April  last. 

Although  it  was  public  in  the  city,  for  weeks  before 
the  application  was  made,  that  the  Vestry  of  Trinity 
Church  was  about  applying  to  the  Legislature,  among 
other  things,  for  an  interpretation  of  the  charter  relative 
to  the  right  of  voting ;  yet  the  new  corporations,  con- 
demning the  claim  to  vote  set  up  by  some  of  their  mem- 
bers, declined  taking  any  step  in  opposition  to  the  bill. 
And  so  odious  was  the  claim  to  three  of  the  corpora- 
tions, that  they  spontaneously  offered  to  join  with  the 
Vestry  in  soliciting  a  legislative  act  to  extinguish  it. 

One  solitary  memorial,  however,  was  presented 
against  the  bill,  and  this  was  from  Thomas  Farmer,  as 
"Chairman,"  and  Benjamin  Ferris,  as  "Secretary," 
of  the  committee  appointed  by  a  meeting  of  Episcopa- 
lians, at  Mechanic-Hall,  called  to  denounce  the  Vestry, 
and  the  Ecclesiastical  Court,  for  their  proceedings  in 
the  case  of  the  Rev.  Cave  Jones.  This  meeting  was 
held  more  than  a  twelvemonth  before  the  Vestry  ap- 
phed  to  the  Legislature,  and  when  their  application 
was  not  even  meditated. 

The  memorial  complains,  in  general  terms,  of  the 
usurpations  of  the  Vestry,  and  prays  that  they  may  not 
be  sanctionod.  What  usurpations  are  here  alluded  to 
the  subscriber  is  at  a  loss  to  conceive.    The  Vestry  has 


11 


done  nothing  more  than  to  confine  the  right  of  voting 

to  the  pew,  and  seat-holders,  and  communicants,  in 
Trinity  Church  and  its  chapels ;  and  to  hold  and  pos- 
sess the  property  which  it  held  and  possessed  long  before 
the  Revolution,  and  to  which  it  derives  title  from 
charters  and  grants  of  the  colonial  government,  con- 
firmed by  the  Legislature  of  the  State.  And  as  to  the 
use  which  the  Vestry  has  made  of  its  property,  it  will 
be  seen,  on  examining  the  state  of  it,  that  it  has  been 
greatly  diminished  by  donations  to  Columbia  College, 
to  a  free-school  whch  has  been  incorporated,  to  a  so- 
ciety formed  for  the  promotion  of  religion  and  learning, 
and  to  many  churches  and  religious  societies,  not  only 
in  the  city,  but  in  various  other  parts  of  the  State. 

Tiie  bill,  in  its  passage  through  the  Houses,  met  with 
little  opposition,  except  from  its  presumed  interference 
with  the  elective  franchise ;  and,  in  the  House  of  As- 
sembly, it  was  referred  to  the  Attorney -General  to  report 
"  whether,  in  his  opinion,  its  passage  would,  in  any 
"  wise,  defeat  or  vary  any  existing  vested  rights  under 
"  the  charter,  or  any  acts  altering  it."  The  Attorney- 
General  reported  that  he  "  had  examined  the  charter, 
and  the  acts  altering  it,  with  the  bill  referred  to  him  j 
"  and  he  was  of  opinion  that  its  passage  would  not  de- 
"  feat  or  vary  any  existing  rights  under  the  acts  or 
"  charter." 

As  the  claim  to  vote  has  a  tendency  to  create  im- 
easiness  in  the  minds  of  the  members  of  Trinity  Church 
in  particular,  and  to  excite  dissentions  among  Episco- 
palians in  general,  one  of  the  objects  of  the  bill  is  to 
obtain  such  an  interpretation  of  the  charter  as  will  ef- 
fectually extinguish  the  claim. 

Tlie  name  of  the  corporation,  since  the  new  corpo- 
rations have  been  instituted,  has  become  inapplicable ; 
as  Trinity  Church  does  not  now  unite,  in  its  body,  all 
the  inhabitants  of  the  city  who  profess  to  belong  to  the 
Episcopal  Church ;  and  a  second  object  of  the  bill  is  to 
have  the  name  of  the  corporation  altered. 

Same    Lawyers,  of  eminence,  entertain  doubts 


1:^ 


whether  the  grants  of  real  estate  made  by  the  corpora- 
tion of  Trinity  Church  to  the  new  corporations  are  le- 
gal 5  which  doubts  are  said  to  spring  out  of  the  ancient 
rule  of  I'higlish  law,  declaring,  "  that  no  corporation 
"  can  make  another  corporation  either  by  usage  or 
"  pr<\s(  ription,  or  by  any  other  means  than  by  the  au- 
"  thoi  ity  of  the  King's  charter  empowering  tliem  to  do 
"  so  by  (express  words  j"*  and  a  third  object  of  the  bill 
is  to  remove  these  doubts,  and  to  render  the  grants 
valid. 

St.  George's  Church,  being  a  chapel  of  Trinity 
Churcii,  was  recently  set  off  as  a  separate  church,  and 
has  b('(!!i  incorporated,  and  endowed  by  agreement  be- 
tween the  congregation  of  that  church  and  the  Vestry 
ofTriicty  Church;  and  the  same  Lawyers,  for  the 
like  r^  ason,  doubting  the  regularity  of  the  transaction, 
a  fourth  object  of  the  bill  is  to  have  the  transaction 
confii  jn  u!. 

Ju'  L  !ig  from  the  past,  it  is  morally  certain  that  the 
future  •i;creaseofthepo])ulationof  thccity  will  strongly 
reconiiiK  iul  to  the  cor[)oration  of  Trinity  Church  the 
policN  <>i'  dividing  its  corporators,  and  setting  them  off, 
in  sci-iu  ate  churches,  with  suitable  endowments  ;  and, 
to  enable  the  Vestry  to  do  this,  in  a  mode  free  from  all 
legal  (iou[>ts,  and  with  the  assent  of  a  majority  of  the 
corpo  :)!:>rs  to  be  set  off^is    fifth  obj-'ct  of  the  bill. 

By  (  ninth  section  of  the  act  for  incorporating  re- 
ligious ,  Mcieties,  it  is  demanded  of  every  religious  so- 
ciety .  !■  'ady  incorporated,  or  to  be  incorporated,  in 
the  cii  it  ;s  of  New  York,  Albany,  and  Schenectady,  to 
exhibit,  '  iice  in  every  three  years,  an  account  and  in- 
vento'  it  allits  estate,  both  real  and  personal,  on  pain, 
if  thaiv  default,  of  ceasing  to  exist  as  a  body  corpo- 
rate. Tiic  account  and  inventory  so  demanded  have 
often  !.(  (Mi  exhibited  by  the  Corporation  of  Trinity 

*  1  Ky<l  on  Corporations,  47. 

[t  riit!  te  ith  section  of  ilie  law  as  revised  and  re-enacted  in 
1813.    2  11.  L.  217  ;  R.  S.  vol.  3,  p.  297,  §10.] 


13 


Church  5  but  the  provision  has  become  a  dead  letter 
when,  at  the  same  time,  a  compHance  with  it  is  attend- 
ed with  considerable  trouble  and  expense.  And,  in  one 
or  more  instances,  probably  occasioned  by  forgetful- 
ness  in  the  party,  the  Legislature,  to  avoid  all  questions 
touching  the  dissolution  of  the  corporation,  has  extend- 
ed the  time  for  making  the  exhibition.  To  exempt 
the  religious  societies  in  the  cities  of  New- York,  Albany, 
and  Schenectady  from  the  effect  of  a  provision,  as  par- 
tial as  it  is  useless,  a  sixth  object  of  the  bill  is  to  pro- 
cure a  declaration,  that  where  a  religious  society  has 
once  exhibited  an  account  and  inventory,  it  shall  not 
be  requisite  again  to  exhibit  the  same,  unless  the  so- 
ciety, after  the  exhibition,  shall  have  acquired  other 
real  estate. 

The  objections  against  the  bill,  as  reported  in  the 
Council,  are, 

1.  "  Because  if  the  members  of  the  several  incorpo- 
"  rated  societies,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant 
"  Episcopal  Church  in  this  State,  formed  in  the  city 
"  of  New-York  after  the  passing  the  act,  entitled, 
'  An  act  for  making  such  alterations  in  the  char- 
'  ter  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  as  to 
'  render  it  more  conformable  to  the  constitution 
'  of  this  State,'  have  a  right  to  vote,  at  the  an- 
"  nual  elections  for  the  church-wardens  and  ves- 
"trymen  of  Trinity  Church,  though  not  having 
"  been  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity 
"  Church  within  one  year  preceding  any  such 
"  election,  or  any  of  the  chapels  belonging  to  the 
"  same,  and  forming  part  of  the  same  religious  cor- 
"  porations,  and  holding,  occupying,  or  enjoying 
"  a  pew  in  the  said  Trinity  Church,  or  any  of  the 
"  chapels  thereof,  or  not  having  partaken  of  the 
"  holy  communion  therein  within  such  year,  in  con- 
"  sequence  of  the  rights  and  privileges  vested  in 
"  them  by  the  laws  of  this  State,  and  the  incorpo- 
"  ration  of  Trinity  Church ;  the  limitation  of  the 
"  right  of  election,  provided  by  the  bill,  may  divest 


t4 


"  or  impair  such  right.  And,  if  any  doubts  exist 
"  respecting  such  right  of  suffrage,  it  is  consistent 
"  with  the  salutary  principles  of  the  constitution 
"  of  this  State,  to  refer  them  to  judicial  cognizance, 
"  as  the  appropriate  and  legitimate  resort  of  ad- 
"  verse  claimants  in  controverted  cases  of  that 
"  description.  This  principle  has  been  heretofore 
"  recognized  by  the  council  in  an  analogous  case, 
"  and  which  received  the  sanction  of  the  honor- 
"  able  the  Assembly  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote, 
"  as  will  appear  by  a  reference  to  their  journals  of 
"the  7th  February,  1810."* 

2.  "  Because  the  charter,  being  a  private  grant,  and, 
"  it  not  appearing  by  recitals  or  otherwise,  what 
"  are  the  existing  doubts  respecting  the  rights  and 
"  privileges  thereby  given,  the  Council  are  depri- 
"  ved  of  the  means  of  judging  whether  any  vested 
"  corporate  rights  are  not  violated  by  the  restric- 
"  tions  and  provisions  contained  in  this  bill." 

3.  "  Because  the  saving,  contained  in  the  proviso  to 
"the  last  section  of  the  bill,  '  of  the  right  of  any 
"  person  or  persons,  or  of  any  body  corporate,  to 
"  the  estate,  real  or  personal,  now  held,  occupied, 
"  or  enjoyed  by  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,' 
"  is  nugatory,  inasmuch  as  all  such  rights,  so  far  as 
"they  respect  the  corporators,  depend  principally 
"  upon,  and  are  inseparably  connected  with  the 
"  right  and  privilege  of  being  a  member  of  the  cor- 
"poration,  and  voting  for  church-wardens  and 
"  vestrymen,  who  have  the  management  and 
"  disposition  of  the  temporalities  belonging  to  the 
"  corporation." 

These  objections  shall  be  examined  with  care  and 
impartiality. 

Whoever  reads  the  act  for  incorporating  religious 
societies,  and  reflects  upon  its  provisions,  and  the  free- 


*  See  objection  of  the  Council  of  Revision,  which  received  the 
Aanction  of  the  Assembly,  page  69,  post. 


1^ 


dom  of  our  civil  and  religious  institutions,  must  be  per- 
suaded that  the  Legislature  intended  that  every  Epis- 
copal society,  incorporated  under  the  act,  should  enjoy 
a  separate  and  independent  existence,  and  be  wholly 
governed,  in  its  spiritual  and  temporal  concerns,  by  offi- 
cers of  its  own  choice.  The  act  provides  that  "  the 
"  persons  qualified  to  vote  at  elections  for  church  offi- 
"  cers,  shall  be  male  persons  of  full  age,  who  shall  have 
"  belonged  to  the  Church  or  congregation,  for  the  last 
"  twelve  months  preceding  the  election,  and  who  shall 
"  have  been  baptized  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  or  shall 
"  have  been  received  therein,  either  by  the  rite  of  con- 
"  firmation,  or  by  receiving  the  holy  communion,  or  by 
"purchasing  or  hiring  a  pew  or  seat  in  the  said  Church, 
"  or  by  some  other  joint  act  of  the  parties  and  of  the 
"  Rector — that  the  voters,  on  a  certain  day  in  every 
"  year,  shall,  by  a  majority  of  voices,  elect  two  church- 
"  wardens  and  eight  vestrymen — and  that  the  church- 
"  wardens  and  vestrymen,  so  elected,  shall  have 
"  power  to  call  and  induct  a  Rector,  as  often  as  a  va- 
"cancy  happens  therein,  and  to  take  into  their  pos- 
"  session,  and  management,  aU  the  temporalities  belong- 
"  ing  to  such  Church  or  congregation."* 

Keeping  in  view  the  wise  intention  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, the  act,  thus  carefully,  confines  the  right  of  vo- 
ting for  church  officers  to  the  persons  who  shall  have 
belonged  to  the  church,  or  congregation,  for  the  last 
twelve  months  preceding  the  election.  It  did  not  re- 
quire the  gift  of  prophecy  to  foretell,  that  if  the  mem- 
bers of  distinct  corporations  were  to  possess  the  right 
of  voting  in  common,  so  that  the  members  of  each 
corporation  would  be  entitled  to  vote  for  the  officers  of 
all,  it  would  open  a  door  to  mischiefs,  dangerous  to  the 
peace  of  religious  societies,  and  hurtful  to  the  growth 
of  genuine  religion.  Two  congregations,  for  example, 
might  combine  to  oppress  a  third,  and,  by  superior 
numbers,  on  the  day  of  election,  might  force  their  own 


[*  R.  S.  vol.  iii.  p.  292.] 


16 


creatures  into  office  ]  and  creatures,  thus  brought  into 
public  Hfe,  might  appoint  or  continue  a  rector,  against 
the  decided  opinions  and  wishes  of  the  minority;  a 
rector  too,  whose  preacliing  the  majority,  being  mem- 
bers of  other  congregations,  might  seldom  or  never  at- 
tend to  hear.  The  same  creatures  might  also  manage 
the  temporal  affairs  of  the  congregation  in  a  way,  be- 
lieved by  the  minority,  to  be  destructive  of  their  inter- 
ests. 

Could  folly  or  wickedness  contrive  a  scheme  of  spir- 
itual intolerance,  more  wounding  to  the  sensibility  of 
a  religious  people,  and  more  reprobated  by  the  gener- 
ous principles  of  our  State  constitution  ?  Let  the  sin- 
cere professors  of  religion,  and  the  patriotic  framers  of 
the  constitution,  answer  the  question. 

Taking  this  to  be  the  true  construction  of  the  act 
for  incorporating  religious  societies,  it  may  be  laid 
down  as  a  position,  not  to  be  controverted,  that  the 
members  of  every  new  corporation  are  limited  in  the 
exercise  of  their  elective  f  ranchise,  to  the  choice  of 
their  own  church-wardens  and  vestrijmen ;  and  that 
they  cannot  rightfully  intermeddle  with  the  elections 
of  other  new  corporations. 

As  the  words  church  and  congregation  are  used 
in  the  act,  as  synonymous  terms,  it  seems  to  be  a  posi- 
tion, equally  incontrovertible,  that  the  members  of 
the  congregation  of  Trinity  Church  are  not  enti- 
tled to  vote  at  the  elections  of  the  new  corporations ; 
for  the  simple  reason  that  such  members  do  not  pre- 
tend to  belong  to  the  congregations  of  these  corpo- 
rations j  unless  it  be  maintained  that  the  act  does  not 
apply  to  the  Episcopalians  in  the  city  of  New- York  5 
a  proposition  that  would  go  the  length  of  dissolving 
every  new  corporation  in  the  city. 

The  next  inquiry  is — whether  the  members  of  the 
congregations  of  the  new  corporations  have  a  right  to 
vote  at  the  elections  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
Church  ? 

The  foundation  for  the  claim  of  this  right  is  the  single 


17 


circumstance,  that  the  charter  incorporates  "  all  per- 
''sons  inhabiting,  or  to  inhabit,  the  city  of  New- York, 
"and  in  communion  with  the  Protestant  Church  of 
«  England." 

These  general  words  of  the  charter,  when  the  real 
meaning  of  the  grantor  is  extracted  from  them,  will  be 
discovered  to  afford  but  a  shght  pretext  for  the  claim. 

The  charter,  like  every  other  grant,  must  be  in- 
terpreted with  reference  to  the  actual  state  of  things 
at  the  time  it  bears  date.  Looking  from  this  ground, 
we  shaU  see  that  the  State,  at  the  date  of  the  charter, 
was  a  province  of  Great  Britain,  and  consequently  sub- 
ject to  its  laws.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
was  the  estabhshed  Church  of  the  mother  country  5 
and  the  crown,  in  its  beneficence  to  the  Episcopalians 
in  the  city  of  New-York,  naturally  sought  to  place 
Trinity  Church  on  a  footing  as  similar  to  that  of  the 
Church  of  England  as  local  circumstances  would  per- 
mit. The  population  of  the  city,  at  the  same  period, 
was  so  inconsiderable,  that  the  whole  number  of  Epis- 
copalians on  the  Island  was  not  sufficient  to  fill  the 
building  already  erected  for  public  worship. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  great  Revolution,  which 
accomplished  the  independence  of  our  country — the 
rapid  increase  of  the  population  of  the  city — and  the 
new  Episcopal  corporations,  which  have  sprung  from 
the  loins  of  these  fruitful  parents,  being  out  of  the 
reach  of  human  foresight,  could  not  be  provided  for 
by  the  liberal  founder  of  Trinity  Church. 

Thus  viewing  the  state  of  things,  at  the  date  of  the 
charter,  and  revolving  the  deplorable  weakness  of  man, 
whenever  he  attempts  to  form  plans  to  meet  the  exi- 
gencies of  posterity,  it  should  not  be  treated  as  strange, 
that  the  founder  of  Trinity  Church  thought  it  proper 
to  make  the  island  of  New-York  but  one  parish^  and 
Trinity  Church  the  only  parish  church. 

That  the  subject  appeared  to  the  founder,  in  this 
light,  is  proved  as  well  by  the  scope  as  the  words  ot 
the  charter. 


By  a  parish  is  meant,  agreeably  to  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal polity  of  England,  the  charge  of  a  particular  rec- 
tor or  priest  j  and  yet  it  is  impracticable  to  mark  out 
the  limits  of  the  charge  with  exactness.  The  bounds 
of  parishes  in  England  have  never  been  defined  by  act 
of  parliament,  but  have  "  been  established  as  the  cir- 
"  cumstances  of  times,  places,  or  persons  happened  to 
make  them  greater  or  lesser."* 

Generally  speaking,  a  parish,  in  England,  may  be 
defined,  that  certain  compass  of  ground  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  a  churchy  which  is  occupied  by  the  peo- 
ple worshipping  in  that  church  :  and  with  this  defi- 
nition, the  practice  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  in  this 
State,  has  invariably  corresponded. 

From  this  doctrine  of  parishes  it  may  fairly  be  in- 
ferred that  a  parish  is  attached  to  every  new  corpora- 
tion, whose  church,  after  being  consecrated,  has  been 
admitted  into  union  with  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
State  5  as  there  is  no  corporation  without  a  minister  to 
whose  special  charge  its  congregation  is  conunitted. 

It  wiU  not  be  disputed  that  the  benefits  of  the  char- 
ter were  designed  for  the  parishioners  of  the  parish  of 
Trinity  Church  5  and  it  is  conceded,  that  the  original 
limits  of  the  parish  were  co-extensive  with  the  island  5 
but  to  insist  that  such  are  the  present  limits  of  the  par- 
ish, when  we  know  that  nine  different  parishes  have 
been  carved  out  of  them,  is  just  as  preposterous  as  to 
insist  that  the  district  of  country  which,  before  the 
Revolution,  composed  the  county  of  Tryon,  still  re- 
mains one  county,  when  our  statute  book  informs  us  il 
has  been  divided  into  many  counties. 

The  conclusion  of  law  is,  that  the  extent  of  the 
original  ^^«/7*.s7/  of  Trinitij  Church  is  reduced  in 
proportion  to  the  mass  of  parishes  attached  to  the 
new  corporations. 

Have  any  of  the  parishioners  reason  to  be  dissatis- 


*  Burn's  Ecclesiastical  Law.  133.  Jacob's  Law  Dictionary, 
by  Tomlin,  title  Parisli. 


19 


fied  with  the  reduction  of  the  parish  of  Trinity  Church  ? 
None  can  be  imagined.  The  formation  of  the  new 
corporations  was  the  voluntary  act  of  the  parishioners 
who  formed  them  ;  and  the  present  parishioners  of 
Trinity  Church  are  bound  by  the  act  of  their  Vestry, 
who  assisted  in  forming  some  of  the  corporations,  and 
gave  their  assent  to  the  existence  of  others  after  they 
were  formed. 

With  confidence  then  it  may  be  asserted,  that  the 
Episcopalians  inhabiting  the  city  of  New- York,  are 
not  all  of  i\\em parishioners  of  the  parish  of  Trinity 
Church.  Such  of  them  as  are  members  of  the  new 
corporations,  have  become  parishioners  of  the  parish- 
es attached  to  them ;  the  legal  effect  of  which  is  vir- 
tually to  dissolve  their  connection  with  the  parish  of 
Trinity  Church. 

It  is  no  less  demonstrable,  that  the  Episcopalians, 
who  are  accustomed  to  take  the  sacrament  in  the 
new  churches.,  are  not  the  communicants  intended 
by  the  charter. 

By  the  discipline  of  the  English  Church  no  person 
can,  at  the  same  time,  be  a  regular  communicant  in 
two  separate  parishes,  under  the  care  of  different  and 
independent  rectors.  The  canons  of  the  church  par- 
ticularly direct  that  "  the  sacrament  shall  not  be  ad- 
"  ministered  by  the  rector  of  one  parish  to  the  parish- 
"  ioners  of  another,  without  the  licence  of  the  rector 
"  of  the  latter  parish  5  except  to  travellers,  to  persons 
"  in  danger  of  death,  or  in  cases  of  necessity."* 

The  rector  is  authoi  ized,  under  certain  circum- 
stances, to  refuse  the  sacrament  even  to  his  parishion- 
ers ;  and,  to  be  regular,  the  parishioners  should  com- 
municate at  least  thrice  in  every  year.f 

The  only  legal  evidence  that  the  parishioner  is  a  com- 
municant, is  his  receiving  the  sacrament  in  the  parish 
church  5  and  the  rector  cannot  take  notice  of  the  re- 
ceipt of  the  communion  in  other  parishes. 

*  1  Bum's  Ecclesiastical  law,  677.  t  Ibid,  682. 


30 


Prior  to  the  Revolution,  if  a  person,  residing  in 
Dutchess  county,  had  removed  to  the  city  of  New 
York,  he  vk'ould  not  have  been  recognized,  within  the 
purview  of  the  charter,  as  a  communicant  qualified  to 
vote,  without  taking  the  sacrament  in  Trinity  Church 
or  one  of  its  chapels  5  notwithstanding,  he  might  pre- 
viously have  received  the  sacrament  in  the  Episcopal 
church  at  Poughkeepsie,  and  thus  have  been  in  com- 
munion with  the  English  Church.  Still  less  would  the 
taking  of  the  sacrament  from  the  hands  of  a  priest,  not 
officiating  in  Trinity  Church,  or  either  of  its  chapels, 
but  acting  independently  of  the  rector  of  Trinity 
Church,  and  within  the  limits  of  his  parish,  have  con- 
ferred this  privilege.  Such  conduct  would  have  been 
deemed  an  offence  against  ecclesiastical  discipline,  both 
in  the  priest  administering,  and  in  the  parishioner  re- 
ceiving the  sacrament ;  and  it  is  an  undeniable  position 
in  law,  that  no  right  can  be  derived  from  the  commis- 
sion of  a  wrong. 

Upon  these  principles  it  was  constantly  maintained, 
before  the  Revolution,  that  no  persons,  but  inhabitants 
of  the  city,  and  who  communed  in  Trinity  Church,  or 
one  of  its  chapels,  were  entitled  to  vote  under  the 
charter. 

The  third  section  of  the  act  entitled,  "  An  act  for 
"  making  such  alterations  in  the  charter  of  the  corpo- 
"  ration  of  Trinity  Church,  as  to  make  it  more  con- 
"  formable  to  the  constitution  of  the  State,"  passed  17th 
April,  1784,  embraces  the  same  principles  with  respect 
to  communicants,  by  restraining  the  privilege  of  voting 
to  such  inhabitants  of  the  city,  "  as  shall,  in  the  said 
"  churchy  partake  of  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
"  supper  at  least  once  in  every  year." 

Some  contend  that  this  section,  by  using  the  words 
"  the  said  church^''  refers  to  the  spiriinal  bodif  of  tiie 
Church,  and  not  to  the  hnilding  of  Tnnittj  Chun-h; 
and  hence  they  argue  that  communicants  in  any 
other  Episcopal  Church,  are  qualified  to  vote. 

It  will  much  assist  our  search  after  the  true  import 


of  the  words,  "  the  said  church,''''  we  take  the  entire 
section,  with  its  preamble,  into  consideration,  and  pro- 
ceed, at  once,  to  ascertain  the  objects  for  whicli  it 
seeks  to  provide. 

Bearing  in  mind  the  title  of  the  act  just  quoted,  it 
is  worthy  of  notice,  that,  after  declaring  the  manner 
of  inducting  the  rector,  as  prescribed  by  the  charter, 
to  be  inconsistent  with  the  letter  and  spririt  of  the  con- 
stitution, the  act  substitutes  a  different  mode  of  induc- 
tion, by  vesting  the  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  of 
the  corporation  with  "■  full  power  to  induct  a  rector  to 
"  the  said  church,  as  often  as  there  shall  be  a  va- 
"  cancy." 

Here  the  term  church  leaves  no  room  for  infer- 
ence. By  not  referring  it  to  Trinity  Church  we  tor- 
ture it  into  a  sense  that  will  defeat  the  very  exercise 
of  the  power  to  induct  a  rector.  Then  comes  the  fol- 
lowing section,  with  its  preamble,  which  defines  the 
qualifications  of  the  persons  who  were  thereafter  to 
be  considered  as  members  of  the  corporation. 

"  And  whereas  doubts  have  arisen  on  those  parts 
"  of  the  said  charter  and  law*  first  above  mentioned, 
"  which  speak  of  inhabitants  in  communion  of  the 
"  said  Church  of  England ;  for  removal  whereof 

"  Be  it  further  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid, 
"  that  all  persons  professing  themselves  members  of 
"  the  Episcopal  Church,  who  shall  either  hold,  occupy, 
"  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in  the  said  church,  and  shall 
"  regularly  pay  to  the  support  of  the  said  church,  and 
^'  such  others  as  shall  in  the  said  church  partake  of 
"th(;  holy  communion  of  the  Lord's  supper,  at  least 
"  once  in  every  year,  being  inhabitants  of  the  city  and 
"  county  of  New  York,  shall  be  entitled  to  ail  the 
"  rights,  privileges,  benefits,  and  emoluments  which,  in 
"  and  by  the  said  charter  and  law  first  above  men- 

*  See  law  [of  1704]  in  vol.  i.  page  60,  of  Van  Schaack's  edition 
of  the  Colony  Laws,  which  enacts  the  charter  almost  in  totidem 
verbis. 

3 


I 


22 


"  tioned,  are  designed  to  be  secured  to  the  inhabitants 
"of  the  city  of  New  York,  in  communion  of  the 
«  Church  of  England." 

Philologers  derive  the  word  church  from  the 
Greek  word  Kt-^iaxov,  signifying  the  Lord's  house ;  that 
is,  a  building  dedicated  to  the  service  of  God.  This 
is  certainly  the  common  acceptation  of  the  word ;  but 
it  is  nevertheless  sometimes  employed  to  denote  the 
church  general^  being  the  collective  body  of  Chris- 
tians throughout  the  world  ;  at  other  times  the  church 
particular^  being  a  body  of  Christians  holding  special 
tetiets,  or  adhering  to  a  precise  form  of  worship ;  and, 
at  other  times,  no  more  than  a  single  congregation. 

It  is  asked  then  whether  the  word  church.^  in  the 
section  cited,  means  a  building  dedicated  to  divine 
service  ?  or  whether,  applying  the  question  more 
directly  to  the  case  in  hand,  we  are  to  understand  by 
the  word,  the  building  of  Trinity  Church  ? 

A  satisfactory  answer  to  this  question  will  call  to 
our  recollection  that,  in  expounding  a  statute,  we  are 
to  presume — that  the  legislator  used  words  in  their 
most  usual  signification — that  he  had  the  subject  mat- 
ter constantly  in  mind — that  all  his  expressions  were 
directed  to  a  reasonable  end — that  his  train  of  thought 
was  uniform — and  that  he  intended  to  infuse,  into 
every  part  of  the  statute,  the  same  spirit. 

By  the  help  of  these  rules  the  doubts  relative  to 
the  meaning  of  the  word  church  will  be  easily  remo- 
ved. 

In  the  first  clause  of  the  section  before  us,  the  leg- 
islator declares  that  those  inhabitants  of  the  city  shall 
be  members  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church, 
"  who  shall  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in 
"  the  said  church.'''' 

These  words  cannot  possibly  be  satisfied  otherwise 
than  by  interpreting  the  word  churchy  according  to 
its  common  acceptation,  to  mean  a  building  dedica- 
ted to  the  service  of  God.  By  applying  the  word  to 
the  church  general,  or  to  the  church  particular, 


23 


such,  for  instance,  as  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
State,  we  shall  be  puzzled  to  find  a  pew  or  seat,  with- 
t)ut  the  exertion  of  supernatural  powers  in  favor  of 
the  attempt — Miracles,  we  are  told,  have  ceased. 

Now,  if  a  buildings  dedicated  to  the  service  of 
■God,  was  intended,  that  building,  in  aU  rational  con- 
struction, must  have  been  Trinity  Church. 

The  legislator  speaks,  in  the  act  at  large,  of  many 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  as  members  of  the  cor- 
poration of  Trinity  Church — of  the  induction  of  a 
rector — and  of  the  necessity  of  altering  the  charter, 
so  as  to  make  it  conformable  to  the  constitution  of 
the  State,  Indeed,  the  whole  subject,  which  engages 
his  mind,  appears  to  be  that  corporation  and  its  char- 
ter. It  would,  therefore,  be  a  very  unnatural  exposi- 
tion of  the  section  to  apply  the  word  church  to  any 
building  except  one  belonging  to  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  Church ,  and  the  more  so  as  Trinity  Church 
and  its  chapels  were  the  only  Episcopal  buildings  in 
the  city  at  the  time.  Besides,  it  will  be  difficult, 
without  grossly  insulting  the  good  sense  of  the  legisla- 
tor, to  suppose  that  he  required  the  inhabitants  of  the 
city  to  hold  pews  or  seats  in  country  churches ;  or 
that  he  expected  the  members  of  the  church  general^ 
or  of  the  church  particular.^  in  other  words,  the  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  State,  by  contributing  to  the  sup- 
port of  either  of  those  churches,  would  acquire  any 
rights  in  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church. 

In  the  second  clause  of  the  section  the  legislator 
farther  declares,  that  "such  others"  shall  also  "be 
"members  of  the  corporation  as  shall,  in  the  said 
"  church,  partake  of  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  liord's 
"  supper,  at  least  once  in  every  year,  being  inhabitants 
^  of  the  city  of  New  York." 

As  this  clause  expressly  enjoins  it  upon  the  com- 
municants, to  take  the  sacrament  in  the  said  churcli^ 
we  must,  out  of  decency,  admit,  that  a  building  in 
which  the  sacrament  might  be  administered,  was  in 
the  legislator's  eye  j  or  else  we  must  attribute  to  him 


24 


a  want  of  due  reverence  for  that  most  holy  ordi- 
nance?. 

It  cannot  reasonably  be  doubted  that  tlic  building 
here  also  meant  by  the  legislator  was  Trinity  Church. 

In  fixing  the  qualifications  of  corporators,  the  leg- 
islator judged  it  expedient  to  give  them  pews  and  seats 
in  Trinity  Church  5  and  this  church  is  the  last  ante- 
cedent to  that  in  which  the  communicants  are  to  par- 
take of  the  sacrament.  Why,  therefore,  should  we 
imagine  that  the  legislator,  in  one  clause,  meant  to 
make  the  holding  of  a  pew  or  seat  in  Trinity  Church 
an  indispensible  qualification  of  membership,  and  that, 
in  the  clause'  next  succeeding,  it  was  his  intention  to 
allow  the  communicants  of  difierent  churches  to  be 
members  ?  Would  not  this  singular  change  of  mind 
justly  expose  the  legislator  to  the  charge  of  fickleness  ? 
And  to  this  charge  might  there  not  as  truly  be  added, 
the  serious  imputation  of  willfully  violating  the  settled 
discipline  and  ancient  practice  of  the  church  5  by  obli- 
ging the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  to  acknowledge,  as 
their  communicants,  men  who  regularly  took  the  sa- 
crament in  churches  entirely  free  from  their  control  ? 

It  follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that  the 
true  meaning  of  the  section,  under  consideration,  re- 
quires the  inhabitants  of  the  city  to  communicate,  or 
to  hold  pews  or  seats.,  in  Trinity  Church.,  in  order 
to  qualify  them  to  be  members  of  its  corporation. 

It^  in  fact,  the  section  stood  alone,  and  doubts 
arose  as  to  its  true  meaning,  they  would  instantly  be 
dispelled  by  construing  the  section  in  connection  with 
the  title  and  other  parts  of  the  act.  The  express  pur- 
poses of  the  act  are  to  relieve  and  benefit  Trinity 
Church ;  and  wherever  the  word  church  occurs, 
without  designation  or  epithet,  it  will  be  found  that 
Trinity  Church  alone  is  contemplated  by  the  legis- 
lator. 

Admitting  the  premises  to  be  true,  and  the  reason- 
ing from  them  to  be  just,  we  shall  be  authorized  to 
conclude  that  the  members  of  the  new  corporations 


S5 


have  no  vested  rights  in  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
Church ;  and,  of  course,  that  the  right  of  election  can- 
not, as  the  first  objection  of  the  Council  supposes,  be 
"  divested  or  impaired  by  the  limitation  provided  by 
« the  bill." 
Because, 

1.  The  members  of  the  new  corporations  are  not 
parishioners  of  the  parish  of  Trinity  Cimrch, 

2.  They  are  not  communicants  in  that  church. 

3.  They  do  not  hold  pews  or  seats  in  that  c'lurch, 
or  contribute  to  its  support. 

That  a  great  majority  of  the  members  of  the  new 
corporations  believe  their  alleged  right  to  vote,  at  the 
elections  of  Trinity  Church,  to  rest  on  a  sandy  t'mnd- 
ation,  is  plain  from  the  stubborn  and  important  fact 
that,  although  Christ's  Church  was  incorporate* i  in  the 
year  1793,  yet  not  a  single  member  of  either  of  t' ■  ?  new 
corporations  offered  to  assert  his  right  until  th<'  elec- 
tion of  1812  ;  a  long  period  of  nineteen  years.*  And 
it  is  more  than  probable  that,  even  then,  th<  right 
would  not  have  been  asserted,  but  from  an  e\;!ecta- 
tion  that  it  might  serve  the  cause  of  Mr.  Jonci- 

For  the  sake  of  argument,  however,  let  it  be  anted 
that  the  erection  of  the  new  corporations,with  t'  joint 
assent  of  the  corporators,  and  the  Vestry  of  T -inity 
Church,  has  not  the  legal  consequence  of  virl^ially 
dissolving  the  connection  of  the  parishioners  (  f  the 
new  churches  with  the  corporation  of  Trinity  CNurch. 

This  concession  being  made,  we  may  propf  y  ask 
— What  is  the  real  situation  of  the  Episcopal  «  arch- 
es in  the  city  of  New-York  '?  If  the  island  still  uains 
one  parish^  and  the  numerous  Episcopalians  '  abit- 
ing  it,  continue  one  body  corporate  by  forcf  •  I  the 
general  terms  of  the  charter,  must  not  Trinity  f  hurch 
be  the  parish  churchy  and  the  new  churches  its  cha- 

[*  Since  the  year  1813,  the  offer  to  assert  such  right  1  :^  never 
occurred  but  once,  and  that  was  after  the  lapse  of  more  t^i  n  thirty 
years.  See  Remonstrance  of  Corporation  of  Trinity  chi;  rch,  pre- 
sented in  the  Senate,  January,  20th,  1846.] 


26 


pels  ?  If  the  new  churches  are  chapels  of  Trinity 
Church,  must  they  not  be  subject  to  the  authority  of 
its  vestry  ?  And,  if  subject  to  its  authority,  what  be- 
comes of  the  several  rectors,  church-wardens,  and  ves- 
trymen of  the  new  corporations  ?  Does  not  the  exist- 
ence of  these  rectors,  church-wardens,  and  vestrymen 
operate  a  direct  violation  of  the  charter  of  Trinity 
Church,  which  provides  only  for  one  rector  and  one 
set  of  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  ? 

If,  on  the  contrary,  the  new  churches  are  not  cha- 
pels of  Trinity  Church,  what  are  the  specific  rights  of 
the  new  corporations,  each  of  which  is  a  part  of  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  % 
And  what,  at  the  same  time,  are  the  specific  rights  of 
the  mother  corporation  ?  Or  is  there  a  perfect  com- 
munity of  rights  between  all  these  corporations  ?  And, 
by  reason  of  this  community,  are  the  congregations  of 
the  new  corporations,  from  their  greater  numbers,  to 
rule  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  by  electing, 
out  of  their  own  members,  the  churcli-wardens  and 
vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church  1 — men  perhaps  averse 
to  its  views  and  interests,  and  who  may  perversely  ap- 
point or  continue  obnoxious  ministers,  and  injuriously 
manage  or  sell  its  estate  ?  And,  for  such  gracious  rule, 
are  t  he  members  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church 
to  possess  the  right  of  voting  at  the  elections  of  the 
new  corporations,  and  to  hold  an  interest  in  their 
property  ?  What  then  is  the  operation  of  the  clause 
of  the  act,  for  incorporating  religious  societies,  which 
confines  the  right  of  suffrage  to  persons,  in  each  con- 
gregation, who  shaU  have  belonged  to  it  for  the  last 
twelve  months  preceding  an  election  ?  And  what  the 
operation  of  the  grants  of  real  estate  already  made  to 
the  new  churches  by  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
Church  '{ 

Endowed,  as  the  subscriber  is,  with  no  more  than 
a  p'fi  in  understanding,  he  frankly  confesses  himself 
incapable  of  answering  these  questions  5  and  he  pre- 
sumes to  say,  that  the  profoundest  casuist  would  be 


27 


perplexed  to  answer  them  with  plausibility.  The  truth 
is,  that  they  present  a  shapeless  mass  of  incongruous 
pretensions,  which,  if  suffered  to  exist,  must  engender 
disputes  injurious  to  the  peace  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  and  dishonorable  to  religion.  And  surely  all 
the  disciples  of  Christ,  in  every  relation  of  life,  are 
bound,  by  his  example  and  precepts,  to  be  earnest  in 
their  endeavors  to  prevent  divisions,  and  establish 
peace  among  their  Christian  brethren.  These  inter- 
esting objects  would  be  happily  gained  to  the  Episco- 
pal Church  by  the  wise  provisions  of  the  second  sec- 
tion of  the  bill.  The  real  office  of  this  section,  when 
maturely  considered,  will  be  found,  not  to  "divest  or 
"  impair"  the  right  of  voting,  but  to  limit,  by  express 
words,  a  right  previously  Umited,  and  in  the  same  de- 
gree, by  the  sound  construction  of  law,  upon  the  act 
for  incorporating  religious  societies,  and  the  creation 
of  new  corporations  under  it,  with  the  joint  consent 
of  the  corporators  and  Trinity  Church. 

It  is  common  for  legislative  bodies,  in  novel  and 
special  cases,  which  have  eluded  the  penetration  of 
former  legislators,  to  pass  acts,  in  the  nature  of  decla- 
ratory acts,  to  pluck  up  discord  and  litigation  by  the 
roots,  that  general  quiet  may  be  promoted.  Such  acts 
resemble  bills  of  peace  in  chancery  5  examples  of  which 
must  be  famihar  to  a  tribunal  so  enlightened  as  the 
Council. 

By  showing  that  the  members  of  the  new  corpora- 
tions are  not  also  members  of  the  corporation  of  Trin- 
ity Church,  we  have  put  at  rest  all  questions  respect- 
ing their  supposed  right  to  the  corporate  property. 

Members  of  every  corporation  have  an  interest  in  its 
estate,  while  they  continue  members,  and  no  longer. 
A  rigljt  to  the  corporate  property  is  strictly  local  in  its 
enjoyment.  Whenever  a  corporator  removes  and  set- 
tles permanently,  without  the  precincts  of  the  corpora- 
tion, his  franchise  "  ipso  facto"  ceases.  Tims,  if  an  inha- 
bitant of  the  city  of  New-York  quits  the  city,  and  takes 
up  his  residence  in  the  county  of  Westchester,  he  relin- 


'28 


quishes  his  rights  as  a  member  of  the  city  corporation, 
and  he  cannot  resume  them  in  any  other  way  tlian  by 
returning,  and  again  fixing  his  residence  in  the  city. 

These  princii)les,  being  indisputable,  prove  the  fu- 
tility of  the  claim,  which  the  members  of  the  new  cor- 
porations make  to  the  estate  of  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  Church.  By  voluntarily  leaving  the  j)arish  of 
Trinity  Church — by  entering  into  other  parishes — by 
neglecting  to  hold  pews  or  seats  in  Trinity  Church, 
and  not  contributing  to  its  support — and  by  never  com- 
muning in  that  Church,  the  members  of  the  new  cor- 
porations have  divested  themselves  of  their  corporate 
characters,  and  put  an  extinguisher  upon  their  rights, 
in  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church.  To  revive 
these  rights,  they  must  comply  with  the  requisitions  of 
the  charter  and  act  of  1784  5  and  without  such  com- 
pliance they  can  have  no  valid  claim  to  any  part  of  the 
corporate  estate. 

The  legal  estate  of  every  corporate  body  is  vested, 
not  in  the  individual  corporators,  but  in  the  corporation 
itself  There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  es- 
tate is  a  trust  for  the  benefit  of  the  corporators. 

By  the  policy  of  law  corporate  bodies  are  forbid- 
den to  be  seized  to  a  use  5  but  the  same  policy  permits 
them  to  be  vested  with  a  trust.  Hence,  if  the  mem- 
bers of  the  new  corporations  actually  have  an  interest 
in  the  estate  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church, 
they  can  only  be  interested  as  cestui  que  trusts.* 

Private  persons,  acting  as  trustees,  are  compellable 
by  a  court  of  equity,  in  cases  of  neglect,  refusal,  or 
fraud,  to  execute  their  trusts  according  to  the  nature 
of  them :  and  it  matters  not,  in  that  court,  whether 
the  trustees,  instead  of  private  persons,  are  oflicers  of 
a  corporation.  In  every  event  the  Chancellor,  upon 
application  for  the  purpose,  will  decree  a  trust  to  be 
executed  under  his  direction. 

Allowing,  therefore,  the  members  of  the  new  cor- 
porations to  be  cestui  que  trusts  of  the  estate  of  the 

*  2  Bacon  II.    Sanders  on  Uses,  227.    1  Vesey,  467,  536. 


29 

corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  the  pro^^so,  in  the  last 
section  of  the  bill,  completely  protects  their  interest ; 
and  it  can  be  no  farther  "nugatory"  than  any  other 
creation  of  a  trust,  in  which  the  cestui  que  trust  has 
had  no  share  in  the  choice  of  the  trustee  apjtointed 
to  dispose  of  the  trust  estate ;  instances  of  which  oc- 
cur in  every  day's  practice. 

Upon  the  idea  that  the  bill,  if  passed  into  a  law, 
would, in  substance,  be  a  declaratory  act,  the  subscriber 
is  sanguine  in  his  hopes,  that  it  will  receive  the  appro- 
bation of  the  Council.  But  thinking,  as  he  does,  of 
the  solidity  of  the  ground  on  which  the  bill  has  been 
brought  forward,  he  would  be  censurable  for  despairing 
of  tlie  Council's  approbation,  even  if  the  right  of  suf- 
frage v;as  clearly  with  the  members  of  the  new  cor- 
porations. 

The  case,  in  the  Journals  of  the  Assembly,  to 
which  the  Council  refers,  as  unfolding  principles  ana- 
logous to  those  of  the  bill,  is  that  of  private  projierty^ 
and  not  of  the  elective  franchise  of  a  corporation. 

As  this  distinction  is  decisive  of  the  favorable  re- 
ception, which  the  bill  merits  from  the  Council,  the 
subscriber,  in  a  few  words,  will  endeavor  to  explain 
the  principle,  and  state  the  facts  on  which  the  distinc- 
tion is  taken. 

The  principle  assumed  is  this — that  although  the 
Legislature  has  ever  been  inflexible  in  its  resolution  to 
preserve  the  inviolability  of  private  property,  yet  it  has, 
from  time  to  time,  exercised  its  discretion  in  moulding 
the  elective  franchise  of  corporations  into  new  shapes, 
the  better  to  adapt  it  to  the  changes  occasioned  by  the 
freedom  of  our  government  and  the  progress  of  socie- 
ty 5  the  one  being  considered  as  a  subject  too  sacred 
to  be  touched  5  and  the  other  as  a  subject  fit  to  be 
carefully  handled. 

This  principle  is  fairly  deduc^!ile  from  the  following 
Legislative  cases. 

1.  The  charter  of  the  city  of  iVew-York  declares 
that  the  bounds  of  the  city  shall  ^*  cross  over  to  Nas- 


( 


30 

*'  sau  Island  to  low  water  mark,  there  including  Great- 
"  Barn  Island,  Little-Barn  Island,  and  Manning's  Is- 
"  land,  and  from  thence  all  along  Nassau  Island  shore, 
"  at  low  water  mark,  unto  the  south  side  of  Red-Hook." 
And  it  grants  to  the  corporation  "  the  sole,  full,  and 

whole  power  and  authority  of  settling,  appointing, 
"establishing,  ordering,  and  directing,  such  and  so 
"  many  ferries  round  Manhattan's  Island,  (alias  New- 
"York  Island)  for  the  carrying  and  transporting  of 
"  people,  horses,  cattle,  goods,  and  chattels,  from  the 
"said  Island  of  Manhattan's  to  Nassau  Island,  and 
"  from  thence  back  to  Manhattan's,  and  also  from  the 
"  said  Island  Manhattan's  to  any  of  the  opposite  shores, 
"  all  round  the  same  island,  in  such  and  so  many  pla- 
"  ces  as  the  Common  Council,  or  the  major  part  of 
"  them,  shall  think  fit;  with  full  power  to  let,  set,  or 
"  otherwise  dispose  of  all  or  any  such  ferries  to  any 
"person  or  persons  whomsoever."  And  it  farther 
grants  "  the  rents,  issues,  profits,  ferriages,  fees,  and 
"  other  advantages  arising  and  accruing  from  all  or 

every  such  ferries,"  unto  the  Corporation  for  ever. 
Here  we  find  an  absolute  grant  to  the  Corporation, 
of  an  exclusive  right  to  transport  goods  and  mer- 
chandize from  New-York  Island,  to  low-water  mark 
on  Long-Island,  and  also  from  thence  to  New-York 
Island.  This  right  the  Corporation  had  possessed, 
without  any  interruption,  for  more  than  a  century. 
And  the  palpable  aim  of  the  bill  entitled,  "An  act 
"granting  relief  in  certain  cases  to  the  inhabitants  of 
"the  city  of  New-York,  and  to  the  inhabitants  of  the 
"  town  of  Brooklyn,  in  King's  county,"  was  to  disturb 
the  corporation  in  the  possession  of  the  right,  and,  in 
the  <  nd,  to  defeat  it. 

Can  imagination  conceive  a  more  flagrant  invasion 
of  the  right  of  private  property  ?  If  the  "salutary  prin- 
"  ciples  of  the  constitution"  ever  required  the  submis- 
sion of  a  case  to  judicial  cognizance,  most  assuredly  it 
was  this  case.    All  good  men,  therefore,  must  applaud 


31 


the  Council  for  assisting  to  strangle,  in  its  birth,  this 
"  lusus  naturae"  of  legislation.* 

2.  The  right  to  choose  charter  officers,  in  the  city 
of  New-York,  is  conferred,  by  the  charter,  exclusively 
upon  "the  freemen  and  freeholders,  being  inhabitants 
"of  the  city."  An  act  was  passed  in  1804,  not  upon 
the  application  of  the  corporation,  but  against  its  pointed 
remonstrance,  by  which  the  right  was  extended  to 
"  every  male  citizen  of  this  State,  or  of  any  of  the 
"  United  States,  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  years  and 
"  upwards,  who  shall  have  resided  in  the  said  city  for 
"the  space  of  six  months  preceding  an  election,  and 
"shall,  during  that  time,  have  rented  a  tenement  of  the 
"yearly  value  of  twenty-five  dollars,  and  have  paid  any 
"taxes  within  the  said  city,  and  is  not  disqualified  by 
"law." 

While  this  act,  with  one  hand,  extended  the  right 
of  voting  to  a  new  class  of  citizens,  it  broke,  in  pieces, 
with  the  other,  the  contract  with  the  original  corpora- 
tors 5  by  indirectly  taking  from  their  right  its  exclusive 
quality,  and  thereby  dissipating  the  consideration  and 
influence,  accompanying  it ;  all  which  was  done  against 
the  positive  stipulations  of  the  charter. 

The  original  corporators  were  then  placed  in  a  situa- 
tion like  that,  in  which  Decius  would  be  placed,  by  an 
act  of  the  Legislature,  which,  declining  directly  to  forfeit 
the  moiety  of  his  farm,  should  nevertheless  prescribe 
that  Lucius  should  hold  it  with  him,  in  common,  and  in 
equal  shares. 

3.  The  act  of  1784,  before  considered  in  part,  pro- 
fesses, in  several  of  its  recitals,  no  other  ends  than 
"  such  alterations  in  the  charter  of  the  corporation  of 
"  Trinity  Church,  as  to  render  it  more  conformable  to 
"  the  constitution  of  the  State."  We  have  seen,  how- 
ever, that  the  alterations,  instead  of  stopping  at  this 
point,  go  far  beyond  it,  and,  in  effect,  annihilate  the  ex- 
clusive right  vested  in  the  communicants  to  vote  for 

*  See  objection  of  the  Council,  in  page  69. 


32 


charter  officers,  by  dividing  it  with  those  who  shall 
hold  pews,  or  seats,  in  Trinity  Church,  and  contribute 
to  its  support.  The  preamble  to  the  particular  sec- 
tion making  this  fundamental  change,  affects  to  doubt 
the  meaning  "of  those  parts  of  the  charter  and  law 
"which  speak  of  inhabitants  in  communion  of  the 
"  Church  of  England  5 "  and  the  doubts  atiected  are  the 
ostensible  reasons  for  new  modelling  the  qualifications 
of  the  voters.  Whereas  the  preamble  was  obviously 
used,  as  preambles  too  often  are,  to  cover  the  design. 
The  language  of  the  charter  and  law*  is  no  less  intel- 
ligible, than  its  meaning  is  clear,  and  the  mind,  that 
could  doubt  whether  communicants  alone  are  entitled 
to  vote,  must  have  been  incurably  diseased  with  skep- 
ticism. Be  it  likewise  noticed,  that  the  Legislature 
was  not  urged,  either  by  the  letter  or  spirit  of  the 
constitution^  to  ref  use  to  the  communicants  the  con- 
tinuance of  their  exclusive  right  of  suffrage. 

4.  In  the  year  1752  a  charter  was  granted  to  Alex- 
ander Colden  and  Richard  Albertson,  making  them, 
and  their  successors,  a  body  corporate,  by  the  name 
of  "the  Trustees  of  the  Parish  of  Newburgh."  The 
real  intent  of  this  charter  was  to  incorporate  the  in- 
habitants of  a  tract  of  land,  called  the  German  Pa- 
tent^ in  the  present  county  of  Orange,  and  com[)rising 
two  thousand  acres  and  upwards,  for  the  pur|)ose  of 
settling  on  the  tract  "a  good  and  sufficient  minister  of 
"the  Church  of  England,  as  by  law  established,  to  take 
"  care  of  the  souls  of  the  inhabitants  5"  and  also  of  pro- 
viding "  a  good  and  sufficient  school-master  to  teach 
"  and  instruct  their  children."  And,  the  better  to  ful- 
fil the  intent  of  the  charter,  a  grant  of  five  hundred 
acres  of  land  was  made  to  the  trustees  and  their  suc- 
cessors, as  a  glebe,  for  the  use  of  the  minister  and 
school-master.  Upon  the  death,  disability,  or  absence 
of  the  trustees,  or  cither  of  them,  or  their  successors, 
the  charter  authorizes  the  inhabitants  of  the 


See  the  note  in  page  21. 


33 


tract,  being  males,  and  above  lawful  age,  to 
"  assemble  at  any  time,  or  times,  upon  some  part  of 
"  the  glebe,  and,  by  a  majority  of  votes,  to  elect  other 
"  trustees,  or  trustee,  in  the  room  of  the  trustees,  or 
"  trustee,  deceased,  disabled,  or  absent."* 

It  happened  that  years  elapsed  without  the  services 
of  a  settled  minister  on  the  tract,  according  to  the  in- 
tent of  the  charter  5  and  the  result  was,  that  differen- 
ces arose  between  the  Episcopalians  and  Presbyte- 
rians concerning  the  use  of  the  glebe.  These  differ- 
ences stirred  a  question  about  the  right  of  voting  for 
trustees ;  the  Episcopalians  asserting  that  no  persons, 
but  of  their  sect,  were  entitled  to  vote  5  and  the  Pres- 
byterians advocating  a  right,  in  common  with  males  of 
every  other  religious  denomination,  if  inhabitants  of 
the  tract,  and  not  under  lawful  age. 

The  colour  which  these  Episcopahans  had  for  their 
exclusive  right,  and  that  which  the  members  of  the 
new  corporations  have  for  their  right  in  common, 
when  viewed  with  a  microscopic  eye,  will  be  found  to 
be  nearly  equal. 

At  one  of  the  elections  for  trustees  two  Presbyte- 
rians were  chosen ;  and  they,  with  about  one  third  of 
the  inhabitants  and  freeholders  of  the  tract,  preferred 
a  petition  to  the  Legislature,  praying  amendments  to 
the  charter. 

The  application  succeeded  ;  and  thereupon  an  act 
was  passed,  in  1803,  entitled,  "  An  act  to  alter  and  a- 
"  mend  the  charter  of  the  glebe  land,  in  the  German 
"  Patent,  in  the  village  of  Newburgh."  By  this  act, 
whose  declared  motive  is  "to  meet  the  interest  and 
"  convenience"  of  the  inhabitants,  the  right  of  voting 
was  expressly  given  to  all  "  the  inhabitants  residing  in 
"  the  patent  who  shall  have  a  right  to  vote  at  the  an- 
"  nual  town  meetings." 

The  only  qualifications  which  the  common  law  an- 
nexes to  a  man,  in  order  to  render  him  an  inhabitant, 


*  3  Johnson,  115. 


34 


are  those  of  being  a  householder  and  a  resident  in  the 
place.  It  is  not  requisite  that  he  should  reside  in  the 
place  for  a  certain  length  of  time — that  he  should  have 
an  interest  in  the  soil — or  that  he  should  pay  taxes.* 

The  inhabitants  whose  character  comports  with  this 
description,  are  the  voters  intended  by  the  charter ; 
and  the  law  pronounces  their  right  to  have  been  open- 
ly violated,  when  the  Legislature,  in  substance,  though 
not  in  words,  directed  that  the  voters  should  be  no 
others  than  those  "  male  citizens  above  the  age  of 
"  twenty-one  years,  who  shall  have  resided  in  the  town 
"  six  months  next  preceeding  the  election,  and  paid 
"  taxes  within  the  same — or  shall  be  possessed  of  a 
"  freehold — or  shall  have  rented  a  tenement  of  the 
"  yearly  value  of  five  dollars  for  the  term  of  one  year 
within  the  same." 

By  this  radical  alteration  of  the  charter,  the  right  of 
suffrage,  instead  of  being  extended,  was  contracted 
within  much  narrower  limits.! 

That  the  cases  cited  to  establish  and  illustrate  the 
principle  assumed,  as  the  guide  of  the  Legislature,  have 
a  heavy  bearing  on  the  bill  reviewed,  must  strike  the 
most  superficial  observer. 

The  bill  cautiously  abstains  from  touching  the  right 
of  property  5  and  to  guard  against  the  possibility  of 
any  violation,  the  right,  if  existing  at  all  in  the  mem- 
bers of  the  new  corporations,  is  amply  protected  by 
the  proviso  added  to  the  last  section. 

In  the  same  spirit  of  caution  the  bill  avoids  every 
attempt  to  new-model  the  elective  franchise.  With- 
out increasing  or  diminishing  the  quahfications  of 

*  Jacob's  Law  Dictionary  by  Tomlin,  letters  I.  N.  H. 

t  The  Act  entitled  "  An  Act  to  increase  the  number  of  Wards 
in  the  City  of  New- York,  and  to  equalize  the  same,"  passed  8th 
March,  1803,  is  another  instance  of  the  exercise  of  the  discretion 
of  the  Legislature  in  new  modelling  the  elective  franchise.  This 
Act  was  passed  without  any  petition  from  the  Corporation  for  the 
purpose,  and  it  increases  the  number  of  wards  in  the  city  and  the 
quorum  of  the  Common  Council  against  the  exj^ress  stipulations  of 
the  charter. 


36 


voters,  it  is  content  to  effectuate  the  real  intentions  of 
the  charter  and  act  of  1784,  by  substantially  declar- 
ing that  the  members  of  the  Congregation  of  Trin- 
ity Church  shall  be  the  only  persons  entitled  to  vote 
at  elections  for  the  choice  of  its  charter  officers. 

Supposing  the  bill  had  undertaken  to  new  model 
the  elective  franchise,  it  would,  from  the  cases  cited 
to  that  point,  have  been  fully  justified  by  the  practice 
of  the  Legislature.  These  cases  appear  to  have  ori- 
ginated in  events,  very  extraordinary  in  their  cast,  and 
impossible  to  be  foreseen  by  the  grantors  of  the 
charters.  When,  therefore,  we  acknowledge  that  the 
discovery  of  nearer  events  transcended  the  natural  pow- 
ers of  our  ancestors,  we  should  not  feel  surprised  at  their 
want  of  ability  to  descry  events  at  a  greater  distance. 
Alas!  alas!  far  from  indulging  surprise  at  what  our 
inflated  pride  would  call  the  deficient  sagacity  of  our 
ancestors,  we  ought  to  give  way  to  the  noble  affections 
of  our  nature,  and  by  imitating  the  piety  and  patriot- 
ism of  our  venerable  progenitors,  we  should  strive  to 
pay  the  debt  of  gratitude,  justly  due  to  their  memo- 
ries, for  leaving  us  the  invaluable  inheritance  of  civil 
and  religious  freedom  ! 

The  almost  unexampled  increase  of  the  population 
of  the  city  of  New-York — the  act  for  incorporating 
religious  societies — and  the  consequent  forming  of  new 
corporations  from  the  rib  of  Trinity  Church — are  also 
events  too  extraordinary  to  have  been  foreseen.  These 
events  have  created  an  unexpected  and  portentous 
crisis  in  the  affairs  of  Trinity  Church!  A  crisis  which 
Lawyers,  of  skill  and  adroitness,  may  render  subser- 
vient to  a  series  of  litigation  that  would  tarnish  the 
honour  of  the  Church-— distract  her  peace — and  en- 
danger her  property !  With  deep  solicitude  to  avert 
these  mischiefs,  and  suffering  from  the  wounds  which 
her  unhappy  children  have  recently  inflicted  in  her 
bosom,  Trinity  Church  presents  herself  before  the 
Council,  and,  in  the  eloquent  language  of  distress,  she 


\ 


entreats  the  members  to  favor  her  bill  with  the  most 
dispassionate  and  mature  deliberation. 

Will  it  be  said  that  Trinity  Church  has  no  claims 
on  the  patronage  of  government  i  Can  she  not  glory 
in  having  produced,  in  our  revolutionary  struggle,  some 
of  the  illustrious  defenders  of  our  civil  and  religious 
liberties  i  Is  she  not  connected  with  a  very  ancient^ 
numerous,  and  respectable  congregation  ?  Has  she 
not  freely  dispensed  her  wealth  in  buUding  churches, 
supporting  the  clergy,  and  advancing  literature  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  State  ? 

These  questions  swell  the  breast  of  the  subscriber 
with  a  lofty  pride  5  but  delicacy  restrains  him  from 
answering  them,  lest  he  should  be  thought  to  suspect 
the  liberality  of  the  Council. 

As  the  charter  appoints  Tuesday,  in  Easter  week, 
for  holding  the  annual  elections  for  church-wardens, 
and  vestrymen,  without  any  authority  to  adjourn  over, 
the  common  law  imposes  it  on  the  inspectors  to  close 
the  poll  on  the  same  day.  By  force  of  this  injunction 
the  want  of  opportunity  would  deprive  many  Episco- 
palians of  their  votes,  provided  all  the  members  of  the 
new  corporations  were  admitted  to  the  right  of  suf- 
frage; and  the  strenuous  efforts  of  the  contending 
parties,  to  obtain  the  votes  of  their  adherents,  would 
be  apt  to  beget  scenes  of  confusion  and  tumult,  scan- 
dalous to  the  Christian  name,  and  threatening  to  pub- 
lic order.*  , 

Besides  settling  the  important  question,  relative 
to  the  elective  franchise,  and  thereby  preventing  liti- 
gation, and  establishing  peace  on  a  firm  foundation, 
the  bill,  when  passed  into  a  law,  would  have  the  happy 
consequence  of  enabling  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church 
from  time  to  time,  as  society  shall  advance,  to  sepa- 
rate the  churches  with  the  consent  of  their  congrega- 

[*  If  such  scenes  were  dreaded  in  1813,  what  is  to  be  appre- 
hended in  1846,  when  instead  of  12  there  arc  38  congregations  ?] 


37 


tions,  and  to  endow  them  with  competent  estates. 
No  power  can  be  more  congenial  than  this  to  the 
spirit  of  our  repubhcan  systems.  The  frequent  exe- 
cution of  the  power  hkewise,  by  breaking  down  the 
estate  of  Trinity  Church,  would  aUay  the  fears  of 
those  honest  repubhcans  who  look  upon  large  estates 
as  nurseries  of  sentiments  hostile  to  liberty :  and 
it  would  calm  the  minds  of  those  enthusiastic  devotees 
who  believe  that  religious  societies,  when  possessing 
wealth,  seldom  employ  enough  of  it  in  the  heavenly 
work  of  propagating  the  gospel. 

The  estate  of  Trinity  Church  is  admitted  to  be 
considerable,  although  greatly  reduced  by  the  causes 
which  have  been  stated.  Certain  wild  calciUations 
have  rated  it  at  millions  5  but  this  is  a  gross  exagge- 
ration !  For  several  years  past  the  income  of  the 
Church  has  fallen  far  short  of  its  annual  expenditures. 

The  bill,  if  a  law,  would  also  be  attended  with  the 
benign  effects  of  sanctioning  the  agreements  of  sepa- 
ration which  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  has  made 
with  its  own  members,  and  of  ratifying  the  conveyan- 
ces of  real  estate  executed  by  the  Vestry  to  the  new 
churches.  Confirmations,  so  beneficial,  could  not 
w^eU  be  opposed :  and  accordingly  none  of  the  parties 
in  interest  offered  to  remonstrate  against  them. 
Should  our  courts  adjudge  the  conveyances  to  be  in- 
efiectual,  the  property  will  revert  to  the  corporation 
of  Trinity  Church,  where  it  was  antecedently  vested. 

It  is  presumed  that  the  charter  of  the  corporation 
of  Trinity  Church,  and  its  petition  to  the  Legislature, 
both  of  which  are  hereto  annexed,*  together  with  the 
information  interwoven  with  these  remarks,  will  ap- 
prise the  Council  of  "  the  existing  doubts  respecting 
"  the  rights  and  privileges  given  by  the  charter  5"  and 
will,  moreover,  furnish  them  with  the  means  of  judg- 
ing whether  any  "  vested  corporate  rights  are  violated 

[*  As  the  petition  is  incorporated  in  the  Remonstrance  lately 
presented  to  the  Legislature  and  printed  with  it,  it  has  not  been 
included  in  the  present  repiint.] 

4 


38 


"by  the  restrictions  and  provisions  contained  in  the  bill." 

The  subscriber  cannot  conclude  these  remarks 
without  solemnly  declaring,  that  no  personal  consid- 
erations have  been  permitted  to  mingle  themselves 
with  his  zealous  exertions  to  procure  the  passage  of 
the  bill  through  the  two  Houses  of  the  Legislature, 
and  with  this  very  humble  attempt  to  recommend  it 
to  the  approbation  of  the  Council.  Appealing  to  his 
heart,  he  feels  conscious  of  having  been  governed  by 
a  sincere  opinion  that  the  bill  is  predicated  on  princi- 
ples perfectly  correct;  and  that  its  final  passage  is 
demanded  by  all  the  motives  which  should  influence 
the  lover  of  religion — the  fiiend  of  justice — and  the 
discreet  legislator. 

And  to  this  solemn  declaration  the  subscriber  begs 
leave  to  add,  that  he  is — A  Churchman.  Born  and 
educated  in  the  bosom  of  the  Episcopal  Church — ven- 
erating her  principles — and  admiring  her  forms — he  is 
not  ashamed  to  avow  his  anxiety  to  preserve  her  peace, 
and  to  enlarge  the  sphere  of  her  usefulness. 

New  York,  iSth  Sept.  1813.      ROB.  TUOUP. 

[Addoidam  to  Note  on  Page  25. — A  debt  is,  by  the  wise 
policy  of  the  laws,  outlawed  and  irrecoverable,  unless  it  has  been 
acknowledged  by  the  debtor  within  six  years  before  suit  is 
commenced.  Twenty  years  possession  with  claim  of  rightful 
ownership  of  land,  (which  the  law  has  always  considered 
the  most  sacred  of  all  property,)  is  a  bar  to  all  recovery  by  anoth- 
er, let  his  claim  be  otherwise  ever  so  just  and  equitable.  Now  sup- 
pose that  D,  instead  of  indirccthj  claiming  a  right  to  it  part  of  the 
property,  or  to  have  a  voice  in  the  application  or  disposition  of  it, 
through  the  right  of  suffrage,  made  the  direct  demand  of  a  specific 
share  of  that  property,  alleging  that  his  right  to  it  had  been  uncon- 
stitutionally interfered  with,  and  that  the  assertion  of  such  right 
was  embarrassed  by  the  law  of  1S14  ;  would  not  the  facts  that 
such  demand  was  thirty-two  years  ago  declared  by  :;n  act  of  the 
legislature  to  be  illegal — that  any  such  right  had  been  continually 
denied  ever  since — that  D  has  never  pretended  during  all  that  time 
even  to  assert  any  such  right,  much  less  to  prosecute  his  claim — and 
that  nobody  else,  making  the  like  claim,  had  done  so  for  thirty  years 
— or,  in  short,  that  the  act  of  settlement  and  PEACE  of  1814  had 
been  universally  accpiiesced  in  for  upwards  of  thirty  years — be  a 
conclusive  answer  negativing  any  such  demand  however  and  where- 
soever it  might  be  m-ged  at  the  present  time  1] 


39 


CHARTER 


CORPORATION  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 

GULIEL3IUS,  Tertius,  Dei  Gratia  Anglite  ScotiiB 
FrancitB  et  Hibermce,  Rex  fidei  Defensor,  SfC. 

To  all  to  whom  these  Presents  shall  come,  sendeth 
greeting : 

Whereas  by  an  act  of  Assembly,  made  in  the  5 
fifth  year  of  our  reign,  entitled,  "  An  Act  for  set- 
"  thng  a  Ministry,  and  raising  a  Maintenance  for 
"them  in  the  City  of  New-York,  County  of  Rich- 
"mond,   Westchester,  and   Queen's  County  5" 
among  other  things  therein  contained  it  is  enac-  10 
ted,  that  there  shall  be  called,  inducted,  and  es- 
tablished, a  good  sufficient  Protestant  Minister, 
to  officiate  and  have  the  care  of  souls  within  our 
said  city  of  New-York  5  and  for  his  better  encour- 
agement to  attend  the  said  service,  it  is  thereby  15 
further  enacted,  that  there  shall  be  annually,  and 
once  in  every  year,  assessed,  levied,  collected,  and 
paid  for  the  yearly  maintenance  of  the  said  min- 
ister, within  our  city  and  county  of  New-York, 
the  sum  of  one  hundred  pounds,  current  money  20 
of  our  province  of  New-York  5  to  be  assessed, 
levied,  collected,  and  paid  in  such  manner  and 
proportion  as  is  further  directed  in  the  body  of 
the  aforesaid  act,  relation  being  thereunto  had 
may  more  fully  and  at  large  appear.    And  u  hei'e-  25 
as  at  the  same  time  when  the  aforesaid  act  was 
made,  there  was  not  erected  any  public  church  or 
building  within  our  said  city,  whereunto  such  a 
good  sufficient  Protestant  Minister  might  have 
been  inducted  for  his  orderly  officiating  of  his  3P 
duty  in  the  public  worship  and  service  of  God, 
according  to  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  our 
Protestant  Chm-ch  of  England  established  I)y  our 


40 


laws.    And  whereas  our  trusty  and  well-beloved 
35    Benjamin  Ffletcher,  our  captain-general  and 
governor  in  chief  of  our  said  province  of  New- 
York,   and   territories   depending   thereon  in 
America,  hath,  by  his  liberal  and  bountiful  dona-, 
tions,  as  well  as  by  his  pious  example,  influenced 
40    many  of  our  loving  subjects,  who  have  likewise 
religiously  contributed  according  to  their  respec- 
tive abilities,  several  sums  of  money,  which,  by 
our  said  captain-general's  direction,  have  been 
employed  and  laid  out  for  the  erecting  and  build- 
45    ing  a  church  and  laying  the  foundation  of  a  stee- 
ple, within  our  said  city,  that  the  public  worship 
and  service  of  God,  in  manner  aforesaid,  might 
be  more  orderly  and  reverendly  performed  by  the 
aforesaid  minister.    And  whereas  our  loving  sub- 
50  jects  Col.  Caleb  Heathcote,  one  of  our  council  of 
our  said  province ;  Major  William  Merret,  mayor 
of  our  said  city  of  New-York  5  John  Tuder,  James 
Emott,  William  Morris,  Robert  Lurting,  Thomas 
Clarke,  Ebenezer  Willson,  Samuel  Burt,  James 
55  Evetts,  Nathaniel  Marston,  Michael  Hawden, 
Thomas  Wenham,  John  Crooke,  and  William 
Sharpas,  citizens  and  inhabitants  of  our  said  city 
of  New- York,  and  the  present  managers  of  the 
affairs  of  our  said  Church  of  England  within  our 
(50  said  city  of  New-York,  have,  by  their  petition 
presented  unto  our  said  trusty  and  well-beloved 
Benjamin  Ffletcher,  our  said  captain-general  and 
governor  in  chief  of  our  said  province  of  New- 
York,  and  territories  depending  thereon  in  Amer- 
65  ica,  prayed  our  royal  grant  and  confirmation 
of  a  certain  church  and  steeple  that  hath  been 
lately  built  within  our  said  city  of  New- York  5  to- 
gether with  a  certain  piece  or  parcel  ot  ground 
thereunto  adjoining,  situate,  lying,  and  being  in  or 
70  near  to  a  street  without  the  north  gate  of  our  said 
city,  commonly  called  and  known  by  the  name  of 
the  Broadway  5  containing  in  breadth  on  the  east 


41 


end,  as  the  said  street  of  the  Broadway  range th 
northward,  three  hundred  and  ten  feet,  until  you 
come  unto  the  land  lately  in  the  tenure  and  occu- 
pation of  Thomas  Lloyd,  deceased ;  and  from  75 
thence  towards  the  west,  in  length  by  the  said 
land,  until  you  come  unto  Hudson's  River:  and 
then  southward  along  the  said  River  three 
hundred  and  ninety-five  feet,  all  of  English  meas- 
ure ;  and  from  thence  by  the  line  of  our  garden  80 
eastward,  unto  the  place  of  the  said  street  in  the 
Broadway  where  first  begun.  And  that  the  said 
church,  together  with  the  cemetry  or  church-yard 
thereunto  adjoining,  may  forever  hereafter  be  ded- 
icated and  consecrated  to  the  pubhc  worship  and  85 
service  of  God,  according  to  the  rites  and  cere- 
monies of  the  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as 
now  estabUshed  by  our  laws-,  which  said  church 
and  steeple,  situate,  lying,  and  being  within  our 
said  city  as  aforesaid,  liaving  been  built  and  erect-  90 
ed  at  the  charge  of  our  said  trusty  and  well  be- 
loved Benjamin  Ffletcher,  our  said  captain-gener- 
al and  governor  as  aforesaid,  and  of  several  other 
of  our  loving  subjects,  inhabitants  within  our  said 
city  and  province.  And  whereas  our  said  loving  95 
subjects,  in  their  said  hutnble  petition,  have  like- 
wise prayed  that  we  would  be  graciously  pleased, 
for  the  better  accommodation  and  conveniency 
of  the  inhabitants  of  our  said  city  of  New-York, 
that  the  same  church  might  be  made  parochial  100 
and  incorporate  into  one  body  politic  in  fact  and 
name,  by  the  name  of  "  The  Rector  and  Inhabit- 
"ants  in  Communion  of  the  Protestant  Church 
"  of  England,  as  now  estabUshed  by  our  Laws  5" 
and  that,  as  such,  they  and  their  successors  may  105 
have,  hold,  use,  occupy,  and  enjoy  all  the  rights, 
benefits,  advantages,  privileges,  immunities,  mor- 
tuaries, and  appurtenances,  as  are  usually  held  and 
enjoyed  by  all  or  any  of  our  parochial  churches, 
of  our  Church  of  England,  within  our  realm  of  110 


42 


England.  And  also,  that  we  would  be  further  gra- 
ciously pleased  to  appropriate  unto  our  said 
church,  the  aforesaid  yearly  maintenance  of  one 
hundred  pounds,  enacted  by  the  aforesaid  act,  and 

115  make  our  further  royal  grant  of  a  certain  quanti- 
ty of  our  land,  near  adjoining  to  the  said  church, 
unto  the  said  petitioners,  in  trust  for  the  use  of  our 
said  church  and  corporation.  Now  know  ye,  that 
in  consideration  of  the  great  charge  that  our  said 

120  trusty  and  well  beloved  subject  Benjamin  Ffletch- 
er,  our  captain-general  as  aforesaid,  and  the  rest 
of  our  aforesaid  loving  subjects,  inhabitants  with- 
in our  said  city.  &c.  have  been  at  in  the  erecting 
of  the  said  church,  and  laying  the  foundation  of 

125  a  steeple  5  and  the  further  great  charge  that  must 
unavoidably  accrue  for  the  finishing  the  said 
church  and  steeple,  and  the  providing  it  with  suit- 
able ornaments  j  as  also  for  the  erecting  and  pro- 
viding a  house,  near  the  said  church,  for  the  hab- 

130  itation  of  a  minister  to  officiate  in  the  said  church, 
in  manner  aforesaid,  as  well  as  of  our  pious  incli- 
nations to  promote,  propagate,  and  encourage  all 
our  loving  subjects  within  our  said  province,  in 
that  reverend  and  godly  duty  in  worshipjiing  and 

135  serving  God  according  to  the  commendable  rites 
and  ceremonies  of  our  Protestant  Church  of  Eng- 
land, as  now  established  by  our  laws,  have  there- 
fore thought  fit,  and  do  hereby  publish,  grant,  or- 
dain, manifest,  and  declare,  that  our  ro}al  will 

140  and  pleasure  is,  and  by  these  presents  do  grant 
and  declare,  that  the  aforesaid  church,  erected  and 
built  as  aforesaid,  situate  in  and  near  the  street 
called  the  Broadway,  within  our  said  city  of  New- 
York,  and  the  ground  thereunto  adjoining,  enclosed 

145  and  used  for  a  ceinetry  or  church-yard,  shall  be 
the  parish  church,  and  church-yard  of  the  parish 
of  Trinity  Church,  within  our  said  city  of  New- 
York  5  and  th",  same  is  hereby  declared  to  be  for- 
ever separated  and  dedicated  to  the  service  of 


43 


God,  and  to  be  applied  thereunto  for  the  use  and  150 

behalf  of  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhab- 
itinjr,  and  to  inhabit  within  our  said  city  of  New- 
York,  in  communion  with  our  said  Protestant 
Church  of  England,  as  now  established  by  our 
laws  ;  and  to  no  other  use  or  purpose  whatsoever,  155 
any  statute,  law,  custom,  or  usage  to  the  contrary 
in  any  ways  notwithstanding.  And  that  there 
shall  be  a  rector,  to  have  care  of  the  souls  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  said  parish,  and  a  perpetual  suc- 
cession of  rectors  there.  And  we  do  by  these  160 
presents  constitute  our  right  trusty  and  well-be- 
loved the  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God,  Henry, 
Lord  Bishop  of  London,  and  of  our  privy  coun- 
cil, the  first  rector  thereof  And  we  have  further 
thought  fit,  and  at  the  humble  request  of  our  said  165 
loving  subjects,  are  graciously  pleased  to  create 
and  make  him,  our  said  right  trusty  and  well-be- 
loved Right  Reverend  Father  in  God,  Henry, 
Lord  Bishop  of  London,  and  his  successors,  rec- 
tors of  the  said  parish,  together  with  all  the  inhab-  170 
itants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting,  and  to  inhab- 
it in  our  said  city  of  New-York,  and  in  com- 
munion of  our  aforesaid  Protestant  Church 
of  England,  as  now  established  by  our  laws, 
a  body  corporate  and  politic,  with  the  powers  175 
and  privileges  hereinafter  menlioned  :  And  ac- 
cordingly our  royal  will  and  pleasure  is,  and  of 
our  special  grace,  certain  knowledge,  and  mere 
motion,  WE  HAVE  ordained,  constituted,  and 
declared,  and  by  these  presents,  for  us,  our  heirs  and  180 
successors,  do  ordain,  constitute,  and  declare,  that 
he  the  said  right  trusty  and  well-beloved  Right 
Reverend  Father  in  God,  Henry,  Lord  Bishop 
of  London,  and  his  successors,  and  all  such  of  our 
loving  subjects  as  now  are,  or  hereafter  shall  be  185 
admitted  into  the  communion  of  the  aforesaid 
Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  now  established 
by  our  laws,  shall  be  from  time  to  time,  and  for 


44 


ever  hereafter,  a  body  corporate  and  politic,  in 

190  fact  and  name,  by  the  name  of  "  The  Rector  and 
"  Inhabitants  of  our  said  City  of  New  York,  in 
"  Communion  of  our  Protestant  Church  of  Eng- 
"  land,  as  now  established  by  our  Laws  5"  and  that 
by  the  same  name,  they  and  their  successors  shall 

195  and  may  have  perpetual  succession,  and  shall  and 
may  be  persons  able  and  capable  in  the  law  to 
sue  and  be  sued,  to  plead  and  be  impleaded,  to 
answer  and  be  answered  unto,  to  defend  and  be 
defended,  in  all  and  singular  suits,  causes,  quar- 

2C0  rels,  matters,  actions,  and  things  of  what  kind  or 
nature  soever  5  and  also  to  have,  take,  possess, 
receive,  acquire,  and  purchase  lands,  tenements, 
hereditaments,  or  any  goods  or  chattels  5  and  the 
same  to  use,  lease,  grant,  demise,  alien,  bargain, 

205  sell,  and  dispose  of  at  their  own  will  and  pleasure, 
as  other  our  liege  people,  or  any  corporation,  or 
body  pohtic  within  our  realm  of  England,  or  this 
our  province,  may  lawfully  do,  not  exceeding  the 
yearly  value  of  five  thousand  pounds  5  the  statute 

210  of  Mortmainc,  or  any  other  statute,  law,  custom, 
or  usage  to  the  contrary  hereof  in  any  ways  not- 
withstanding. And  that  the  said  rector  shall  have 
the  care  of  the  souls  of  the  inhabitants  within  the 
said  parish,  and  in  the  communion  of  our  said 

215  Protestant  Clmrch  of  England,  as  now  establish- 
ed by  cur  laws*,  and  have  and  enjoy  to  him  and 
his  successors  for  ever,  one  messuage  or  tenement, 
and  appurtenances,  intended  to  be  erected  on 
part  of  the  said  church-yard,  or  near  thereunto  as 

220  conveniently  as  can  be  procured.  And  our  royal 
will  and  pleasure  is  further,  that  the  patronage, 
advowson,  donation,  or  presentation  of  and  to  the 
said  rectory  and  parish,  after  the  decease  of  the 
said  first  rector,  or  the  next  avoidance  thereof, 

225  shall  appertain  and  belong  to,  and  be  hereby  vest- 
ed in  the  church-wardens  and  vestrymen,  <  r  the 
major  part  of  the  said  vestrymen,  together  with 


45 


either  of  the  church-wardens  of  Trinity  Church 
for  the  time  being;  and  that  all  the  succeeding 
rectors  of  the  said  parish  and  parish  church  (ex-  230 
cept  the  first  rector  thereof  hereby  constituted) 
shall  be  presented,  collated,  instituted,  and  induc- 
ted as  other  rectors,  parsons,  and  vicars  respect- 
ively are  accustomed  to  be.    And  we  further  de- 
clare it  to  be  our  royal  will  and  pleasure,  that  the  235 
first  rector,  and  all  the  succeeding  rectors  thereof, 
shall  and  may  have,  take,  and  enjoy,  such  and  the 
like  oblations,  mortuaries,  Easter-books,  or  offer- 
ings, and  other  ecclesiastical  duties  arising  within 
the  said  parish  of  Trinity  Church,  as  the  vicar,  240 
rector,  or  parson  of  St.  Mary  Bow,  within  our 
city  of  London,  in  our  realm  of  England,  now 
enjoyeth  5  and  shall  have  such  and  the  like  profits 
of  burials  in  the  said  church  as  the  same  shall  be 
limited  in  the  instrument  of  dedication  thereof  245 
And  we  further  declare,  that  the  said  rector  of 
the  parish  of  Trinity  Church,  in  communion  of 
our  Protestant  Church  of  England,  within  our 
city  of  New-York,  as  now  estabhshed  by  our  laws, 
shall  and  may,  for  ever  hereafter,  have  a  common  250 
seal,  to  serve  and  use  for  all  matters,  causes,  things, 
and  aflairs  whatsoever,  of  them  and  their  succes- 
sors ;  and  the  same  seal  to  alter,  change,  break, 
and  make  new  from  time  to  time,  at  their  will  and 
pleasure,  as  they  shall  think  fit.    And  further  we  255 
will  and  ordain,  and  by  these  presents  do  declare 
and  appoint,  that  for  the  better  ordering  and  man- 
aging of  the  aflairs  and  business  of  the  said  cor- 
poration, there  shall  be  annually,  and  once  in  ev- 
ery year  for  ever,  on  ihe  Tuesday  in  Easter  week,  260 
two  church- wardens  and  twenty  vestrymen,  duly 
elected  by  the  majority  of  votes  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  said  parish,  in  communion  as  aforesaid  5 
which  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  shall  be, 
from  time  to  time,  subject  to  our  laws  and  statutes  265 
now  in  force,  or  hereafter  to  be  made,  for  the 


46 


choice  of  church-wardens,  overseers  of  the  poor, 
and  such  other  Hke  parish  officers,  and  other  pa- 
rochial duties  within  the  said  parish,  in  Hke  manner 

270  as  the  inhabitants  of  any  parish  within  our  pro- 
vince are  or  might  be  subject  and  hable  unto  (ex- 
cept where  it  shall  be  otherwise  hereby  appoint- 
ed.) And  we  do  by  these  presents  constitute 
and  appoint  Thomas  Wenham  and  Robert  Lurt- 

275  ing  the  first  church-wardens  of  the  said  parish  j 
and  Caleb  Heathcote,  William  Merret,  John 
Tuder,  James  Emott,  William  Morris,  Thomas 
Clarke,  Ebenezcr  Willson,  Samuel  Burt, 
James  Evetts,    Nathaniel    Marston,  Michael 

280  Havvden,  John  Crooke,  William  Sharpas,  Law- 
rence Reade,  David  Jamison,  W  illiam  Huddle- 
ston,  Gabriell  Ludlow,  Thomas  Burroughs,  John 
Merrett,  and  William  Janeway,  the  first  Vestry- 
men of  the  said  parish  5  to  have,  hold,  and  exe- 

285  cut;)  tlieir  said  respective  offices  till  the  feast  of 
Easter,  which  shall  be  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  six  hundred  and  ninety-eight.  And 
the  said  church-wardens  shall  have  and  receive 
sucli  and  the  like  church  duties  and  perquisites  as 

290  the  church-wardens  of  the  said  parish  of  St.  Ma- 
ry Bow  do,  may,  might,  or  ought  to  receive  5  and 
shall  be  accountable  for  the  same,  and  all  other 
monies  as  shall  come  to  them  as  church-wardens, 
in  such  manner  as  church-wardens  of  any  other 

295  parishes  within  our  city  of  London  are  or  ought 
to  be.  And  we  further  declare  it  to  be  our  royal 
will  and  pleasure,  that  the  rector,  church-wardens, 
and  vestrymen,  shall  make  the  number  of  the 
whole  to  be  twenty-three  persons ;  and  the  said 

300  vestrymen,  or  any  eleven  or  more  of  them  (where- 
of the  rector  for  the  time  being,  or  his  assistant, 
or  clerk  by  appointment,  and  one  of  the  church- 
wardens, to  be  two)  shall  and  may  have  and  exer- 
cise the  like  power  and  authority  for  the  ordering 

305  and  regulating  the  aflairs  of  the  said  corporation 


I 


47 

and  parish  of  Trinity  Church,  as  the  vestry  of  the 
said  parish  of  St.  Mary  Bow  now  have  and  exer- 
cise, in  reference  to  parish  affairs ;  and  upon  the 
death  or  other  voidance  of  any  such  vestrymen, 
they,  or  any  eleven  or  more  of  them,  shall,  and  may  310 
elect  a  fit  person,  inhabitant  and  householder  in 
the  said  parish,  to  supply  the  same.  And  we  fur- 
ther ordain  and  declare,  that  the  church-wardens 
for  the  time  being,  shall  not,  at  any  time,  dispose  of 
any  of  the  pews,  or  places  in  pews  in  the  said  315 
church,  to  any  person  not  an  inhabitant  thereof, 
nor  without  the  consent  and  allowance  of  the  ves- 
trymen for  the  time  being,  or  any  eleven  or  more 
of  them.  And  our  further  will  and  pleasure  is, 
and  we  by  these  presents  declare,  that  the  rector  320 
of  the  said  parish  for  the  time  being,  shall  and 
may,  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  said  vestry- 
men and  church-wardens  for  the  time  being,  or 
any  eleven  or  more  of  them,  whereof  one  of  the 
church-wardens  to  be  one,  from  time  to  time,  nom-  325 
inato  one  able  Protestant  minister,  in  priests'  or- 
ders, to  reside  in  the  said  parish,  to  be  preaclier 
and  assistant  to  the  said  rector  and  his  successors, 
in  the  celebration  of  the  divine  offices  of  praying 
and  preaching,  and  other  duties  incident  to  be  per-  330 
formed  in  the  said  church  and  parish,  as  the  said 
rector  shall  require  of  him  j  and  likewise  to  nomi- 
nate a  fit  person  to  be  clerk  of  the  said  parish, 
and  one  or  more  sexton  or  sextons  5  to  wliich 
clerk  or  sextons,  respectively,  there  shall  be  such  335 
and  the  like  dues,  fees,  perquisites,  and  profits, 
paid  and  allowed,  as  shall  be  established  by  the 
said  rector,  church-wardens,  and  vestrymen,  in 
manner  aforesaid  ;  which  said  preacher  assistant, 
clerk,  and  sexton  or  sextons,  and  every  of  them,  340 
shall  continue  in  his  said  place  during  his  or  their 
natural  lives,  if  they  shall  so  long  inhabit  there  5 
except  on  some  offence  or  mij  ,9vernment  by 
them,  or  any  of  them,  committed,  and  unless  for 


48 


345  cause  reasonable  proved,  they  shall  be  displaced 
by  the  said  rector  for  the  time  being,  by  and  with 
the  consent  of  the  said  vestrymen,  or  any  eleven  or 
more  of  them.  And  that  the  church-wardens  of 
the  said  parish  of  Trinity  Church  for  the  time  be- 

350  ing,  shall,  and  are  hereby  required,  from  time  to 
time,  to  pay  the  yearly  sum  of  ten  pounds  to  the 
clerk,  to  be  appointed  as  aforesaid,  out  of  the  pro- 
fits and  other  the  duties  and  perquisites  to  them 
accruing  in  the  said  church  and  parish,  by  four 

355  quarterly  payments  5  that  is  to  say,  on  the  feast 
of  St.  Michael,  the  archangel,  the  Birth  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  the  Annunciation 
of  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary,  and  St.  John  the 
Baptist  5  or  ten  days  after  every  of  the  said  re- 

360  spective  feasts,  by  equal  and  even  portions.  And 
we  further  ordain  and  declare,  that  the  said 
church-wardens  and  vestrymen,  or  any  eleven  or 
more  of  them,  are,  by  these  presents,  authorized 
and  required,  within  the  space  and  time  of  three 

365  hundred  days  next  and  after  the  seahng  and  en- 
rolling of  these  presents,  to  make,  or  cause  to  be 
made,  an  estimate  in  writing,  under  the  hand  or 
hands  of  some  sufficient  person  or  persons  quali- 
fied for  the  same,  of  the  charge  and  finishing  the 

370  said  church  and  steeple,  and  providing  a  clock 
and  one  or  more  bells  for  the  same,  and  other 
works  necessary  and  requisite  in  and  about  the 
said  church  and  steeple  5  and  of  building  a  con- 
venient house  for  the  said  rector.    And  such  sum 

375  or  sums  of  money  as  shall  appear  to  them,  upon 
such  estimate,  to  be  in  their  judgment  competent 
to  accomplish  the  premises,  and  to  satisfy  and  pay 
the  debts  incurred  for  or  by  reason  of  the  said 
church,  shall  be  by  them,  or  any  eleven  or  more  of 

380  them,  charged  upon  all  and  every  of  the  inhabit- 
ants in  the  said  parish ;  to  be  by  them  paid  in  seven 
years,  by  twenty-eight  quarterly  and  successive 
payments :  the  first  whereof  to  commence  and  be- 


49 


come  payable  to  the  church-wardens  for  the  time 
being,  who  are  hereby  authorized  to  receive  the  385 
same  at  the  first  of  the  feast  days  aforesaid  as  shall 
happen  after  the  assessing  and  taxing  thereof;  and 
the  rest  to  be  successively  to  them  also  quarterly 
paid,  at  the  successive  feast  days  aforesaid,  until 
all  the  said  twenty-eight  quarterly  payments  shall  390 
be  made  and  finished.    And  the  said  church-war- 
dens and  vestrymen,  or  any  eleven  or  more  of  them, 
are  hereby  required  and  authorized,  within  three 
hundred  and  sixty-five  days  next  and  after  the  seal- 
ing and  enrolling  of  these  presents,  to  assess,  tax,  395 
and  rate  the  first  of  the  said  quarterly  payments 
afl;er  a  pound  rate  or  otherwise,  as  they  shall  think 
most  reasonable,  equal,  and  meet*,  and  in  Uke 
manner  to  assess  every  other  of  the  said  quarterly 
payments  within  forty  days  after  the  time  of  pay-  400 
ment  of  the  next  preceding  quarterly  payment :  all 
which  said  assessments  shall  be  confu-med  and 
aljowed  by  two  justices  of  the  peace  witliin  the 
said  parish,  and  in  communion  of  the  said  church 
as  aforesaid,  under  their  hands  and  seals  :  and  be  405 
collected  by  such  persons,  inhabitants  of  the  said 
parish,  as  by  the  said  vestrymen,  or  any  eleven  or 
more  of  them,  shall,  from  time  to  time,  under  their 
hands  and  seals,  appoint.    And  we  further  declare, 
that  if  the  estimate  and  computation,  to  be  made  410 
as  aforesaid,  shall  not  be  sufficient  to  discharge  the 
debts  incurred  about  the  building  and  finishing  of 
the  said  church  and  steeple,  and  other  the  works 
hereby  intended  to  be  done,  the  said  vestrymen,  or 
any  eleven  or  more  of  them,  shall  and  may  charge  415 
and  assess  such  additional  sum  and  sums  upon  the 
inhabitants  of  the  said  parish,  in  communion  as 
aforesaid,  as  shall  be  needful  to  perfect  and  accom- 
pUsh  the  same  5  so  as  such  additional  sum,  togeth- 
er with  the  sum  hereby  charged  and  payable  by  420 
the  said  twenty-eight  quarterly  payments,  exceed 
not  in  the  ^vhole  the  sum  of  five  hundred  pounds. 


50 


And  we  further  declare  it  to  be  our  royal  will  and 
pleasure,  that  the  church-wardens  of  the  said  par- 

425  ish  of  Trinity  Churcli,  shall  cause  all  the  debts,  cre- 
dits, and  contracts,  made  and  to  be  made,  with  or 
by  the  artificers  and  workmen  employed,  or  to  be 
employed  for  any  work  or  building  to  be  made  or 
done  in  or  about  the  said  church,  steeple,  and  prem- 

430  ises,  to  be  entered  and  registered  in  one  or  more 
book  or  books  to  be  kept  for  that  purpose ;  and 
the  said  vestrymen,  or  any  eleven  or  more  of  them, 
out  of  the  money  collected  and  paid  to  the  said 
church-wardens,  upon  the  said  quarterly  pay- 

435  ments,  or  by  any  other  ways  and  means,  for  the 
use  aforesaid,  shall,  in  the  first  place,  pay  and  dis- 
charge, or  cause  to  be  paid  and  discharged,  all  such 
debts  as  shall  become  due  unto  the  ai-tificers  and 
workmen  employed,  or  to  be  employed  in  and 

440  about  the  finishing  the  said  church,  steeple,  house, 
and  premises,  and  shall  issue  and  pay,  or  cause  to 
be  issued  and  paid  to  the  said  artificers  and  work- 
men, as  aforesaid,  all  and  every  sum  and  sums  of 
money,  now  or  hereafter  due  and  payable  unto 

445  them,  their  executors,  administrators  or  assigns, 
proportionably  according  to  the  dates  of  the  regis- 
tering of  their  debts  and  credits  as  aforesaid,  with 
moderate  interest,  if  need  shall  be  for  their  forbear- 
ance thereof    And  we  further  declare,  that  the 

450  church-wardens  for  the  said  parish  for  the  time  be- 
ing, together  with  any  eleven  or  more  of  the  said 
vestrymen,  shall,  upon  the  Tuesday  in  Easter  week, 
yearly,  for  ever,  or  at  any  time  witinn  ten  days  af- 
ter the  said  Tuesday,  tax,  rate,  and  assess  the 

455  yearly  sum  of  thirty  pounds,  upon  the  inliahitants 
of  the  said  parish  in  connnunion  as  aforesaid,  for 
the  payment  of  the  preacher  assistant,  to  be  nom- 
inated and  appointed  as  aforesaid,  and  for  the  pay- 
ing and  defraying  the  other  contingent  charges 

460  that  may  yearly  accrue  within  the  said  jiarish  : 
which  said  assessment  shall  be  confirmed  and  al- 


51 


lowed  in  such  manner  as  other  the  assessments 
hereby  appointed  to  be  made  as  aforesaid,  and  be 
collected  and  paid  yearly  to  the  church-wardens 
for  the  time  being,  by  such  person  and  persons  as  465 
the  said  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  shall  ap- 
point, at  the  four  usual  or  times  of  the  year  before 
mentioned :  the  first  payment  to  begin  and  be 
made  at  that  feast  day  next  and  after  the  said 
preacher  assistant  shall  be  presented  and  enter  to  470 
assist  the  said  rector  in  the  said  church,  in  man- 
ner aforesaid.    And  the  said  church-wardens,  or 
either  of  them,  shall  pay  the  said  yearly  sum  of 
thirty  pounds,  over  and  above  all  charges  and  de- 
ductions for  collecting  the  same,  to  the  said  475 
preacher  assistant  for  the  time  being,  to  be  nomi- 
nated as  aforesaid,  upon  the  said  four  usual  feasts 
or  terms  in  the  year,  by  even  and  equal  portions. 
And  we  further  ordain  and  declare  it  to  be  our 
royal  will  and  pleasure,  that  the  said  church-war-  480 
dens,  together  with  eleven  or  more  of  the  vestry- 
men of  the  said  parish,  shall,  and  are  hereby 
authorized,  from  time  to  time,  to  make  rates  and 
assessments  in  manner  aforesaid,  for  the  repairing 
and  amending  the  said  church,  steeple,  cemetry  485 
or  church-yard  of  the  said  parish,  when  need 
shall  be  ;  the  said  rates,  taxes,  and  assessments 
for    repairing   and  amendhig   the  church  and 
premises,  to  be  paid  to  the  said  church-wardens 
of  the  said  parish ,  and  those,  and   all   other  490 
the  said  last  mentioned  taxes,  rates,  and  assess- 
ments, to  be  made  and  collected,  confirmed  and 
allowed,  as  aforesaid.    And  moreover,  of  our  spe- 
cial grace,  certain  knowledge,  and  meer  motion, 
we  do   give,  grant,  ratify,   and  confirm,  unto  495 
the  said  rector  and  inhabitants  of  our  said  city  of 
New- York,  in  conmmnion  of  our  Protestant 
Church  of  England,  as  now  estnblished  by  our 
lavvs,  that  the  said  church  and  cemetry  or  church- 
yard, situate,  lying,  ^  and  being  within  our  said  500 


52 


city  of  New-York  as  aforesaid,  shall  be  the  sole 
and  only  parish  church  and  church-yard  of  our 
said  city  of  New-York.  And  our  royal  pleasure 
is,  and  we  by  these  presents  do  declare  that  the 

505  said  rector  of  the  said  parish  church  is  a  good  suf- 
ficient Protestant  minister,  accordin<r  to  the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  the  said  act  of  Assembly, 
made  in  the  aforesaid  fifth  year  of  our  reign,  en- 
titled, "  An  Act  for  the  settling  of  a  Ministry, 

510  &.C.,"  and  as  such  we  do  further  of  our  like  special 
grace,  certain  knowledge,  and  mere  motion,  give, 
grant,  ratifye,  endow,  appropriate,  and  confirm  un- 
to the  said  rector  of  the  parish  of  Trinity  Church, 
within  our  said  city  of  New- York,  and  his  suc- 

515  cessors  forever,  the  aforesaid  yearly  maintenance 
of  one  hundred  pounds,  directed  by  the  said  act 
of  Assembly  to  be  yearly  laid,  assessed,  and  paid 
unto  the  said  sufficient  Protestant  minister,  for  his 
yearly  maintenance.    To  have  and  to  hold  the 

520  said  yearly  maintenance  of  one  hundred  pounds 
aforesaid,  unto  him  the  said  rector  of  the  parish 
of  Trinity  Church  within  our  said  city  of  New- 
York,  and  his  successors  to  the  sole  and  only 
proper  use,  benefit  and  behoof  of  him  the  said 

525  rector  of  the  parish  of  Trinity  Church  within  our 
said  city  of  New-York,  and  his  successors  forever. 
And  we  do,  by  these  presents,  strictly  charge,  re- 
quire and  command  the  church-wardens  and  ves- 
trymen yearly  constituted,  elected,  and  appoint- 

530  ed  by  the  aforesaid  act  of  Assembly,  made  as  a- 
foresaid,  that  they  faitlifully,  truly,  and  without 
fraud,  annually,  and  once  in  every  year,  forever, 
levy,  assess,  and  collect  the  said  yearly  mainte- 
nance of  one  hundred  pounds,  current  money  a- 

535  foresaid,  according  to  the  rules,  directions,  and 
clauses  in  the  said  act  of  Assembly  mentioned, 
■and  under  the  pains  and  penalties  therein  con- 
tained. And  that  the  said  church-wardens 
mentioned  in  the  aforesaid  act  of  Assembly  do  an- 


I 

53 

nually^  in  four  quarterly  payments,  pay  the  said  540 
yearly  maisuenance  of  one  hundred  pounds,  lev- 
ied, assessed,  and  collected  as  aforesaid,  unto  the 
said  rector  of  the  parish  of  Trinity  Church,  and 
to  his  successors,  forever,  as  of  ri^ht  they  ou^ht 
to  do,  without  any  delay,  let,  hindrance,  refusal,  545 
disturbance,  or  luolestation  whatsoever,  as  they 
and  every  of  them  will  answer  the  contrary  un- 
der the  pains  and  penalties  in  the  said  act  of  As- 
sembly ordained.    And  we  further  declare,  that 
upon  any  neglect  or  refusal  of  the  said  church-  550 
wardens  and  vestrymen  appointed  by  the  said 
act,  of  their  levying,  assessing,  collecting,  and 
paying  the  said  yearly  maintenance  of  one  hun- 
dred pounds  as  aforesaid,  that  it  shall  and  may  be  555 
lawful  for  the  said  rector  or  incutnbentof  the  said 
parish  for  the  time  being,  to  prosecute  the  said 
church-wardens  and  vestrymen,  in  an  action  of 
debt,  in  any  of  the  courts  of  record  within  our  560 
said  province,  wherein  no  essoin,  protection,  or 
wager  of  law  shall  be  allowed,  any  thing  con- 
tained in  the  said  act,  to  the  contrary  hereof  in 
any  ways  notwithstanding.    And  we  do  of  our 
like  special  grace,  certain  knowledge,  and  mere  565 
motion,  give  and  grant  luito  the  said  rector  and 
inhabitants  of  our  ciiy  of  New-York,  in  commu- 
nion, &c.  full  power  and  authority,  froin  time 
to  time,  to  appoint,  alter,  and  change  such  days 
and  times  of  meeting  as  they  shall  think  lit,  and  57(r 
to  choose,  nominate,  and  appoint  so  many  others 
of  our  liege  people  as  they  shall  think  lit,and 
shall  be  willing  to  accept  the  same,  to  be  mem- 
bers of  the  said  church  and  corporation  and  bodv 
politic,  and  them  into  the  same  to  admit ;  and  to  575 
elect  and  constitute  such  other  officer  or  officers 
as  they  shall  think  fit  and  requisite  for  the  order- 
ly managing  and  despatching  of  the  affairs  of  the 
said  church  and  corporation,  and  their  successors ; 
and  from  time  to  time  to  make,  ordain,  and  con-  580 

5 


54 


stitute,  or  repeal  such  rules,  orders,  and  ordinan- 
ces, for  llie  good  and  welfare  of  the  members  of 
the  said  church  and  corporation,  so  that  those 
rules,  orders,  and  ordinances  be  not  repugnant  io 

585  the  laws  of  our  realm  of  Fngland,  and  of  this  our 
province.  And  wefurther declare, and  bythesepre- 
sentsdogive,  grant,  license,  and  permit  unto  the  said 
rector  and  inhabitants,  »Sic  that  the  said  church- 
wardensand  vestrymen,  oranyother  appointed  by 

590  them,  may,  from  time  to  time, and  at  all  times  here- 
after, upon  the  Lord's  day,  after  divine  service,  or 
at  any  other  time  or  tinnes  when  they  shall  think 
it  convenient,  take  and  receive  the  free  and  vol- 
untary gifts,  al  lis,  contributions,  and  offerings  of  all 

595  or  any  of  our  loving  subjects;  which  collections, 
gatherings, orreceivings,shallbeemployed  by  them 
for  and  towards  the  finishingofthe  said  church,  stee- 
ple, and  premises,  or  any  other  pious  and  charitable 
work,  as  to  them  shall  seem  meet  and  convenient, 

600  any  statute  or  law  to  the  contrary  hereof  in  any 
ways  notwithstanding.  To  have  and  to  hold  all 
and  every  of  the  premises,  together  with  all  and 
singular  the  rights,  customs,  usages,  benefits,  mem- 
bers, advantages,  advowsons,  presentations,  inor- 

605  tuaries,  oblations,  offerings,  fees,  perquisite*,  pro- 
tits,  royalties,  hereditarrients,  and  appurtenances 
whatsoever,  unto  the  said  church,  church-yard, 
and  premises  belonging,  or  in  anyways  apper- 
taining unto  them  the  said  rector  and  inhabitants 

610  of  our  said  city  of  New- York,  in  communion  of 
the  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  now  estab- 
lished by  our  laws,  and  their  successors,  to  the 
sole  and  only  use,  benefit,  and  behoof  of  them,  the 
•    said  rector,  inhabitants,  &c.,  and  their  successors 

615  forever,  to  be  holden  of  us,  our  heirs  and  succes- 
sors, in  free  and  common  soccage,  as  of  our  manor 
of  East  Greenwich,  in  our  county  of  Kent,  within 
our  realm  of  England  ;  yielding,  rendering,  and 
paying  therefor,  yearly  and  every  year,  unto  us. 


55 


our  heirs  and  successors,  on  the  feast  day  of  the  620 
Annunciation  of  our  blessed  Virgin  Mary,  at  our 
city  of  New-York,  the  yearly  rent  of  one  pepper- 
corn, if  the  same  be  lawfully  demanded,  in  lieu 
and  stead  of  all  other  rents,  dues,  duties,  and  de- 
mands whatsoever  for  the  premises.    And  last-  625 
ly,  we  do  for  us,  our  heirs  and  successors,  ordain 
and  grant  unto  the  said  rector,  inhabitants,  &c., 
and  tiieir  successors,  by  tliese  presents,  that  these 
ourgrants  shall  be  firm,  good,  effectual,  and  avail- 
able in  all  things  in  the  law,  to  all  intents,  con-  630 
structions,  and  purposes  whatsoever,  according  to 
our  true  intent  and  meaning  herein  before  de- 
clared, and  shall  he  construed,  reputed,  and  ad- 
judged in  all  cases  most  favourable,  and  on  the 
behalf,  and  for  the  best  benefit  and  behoof  of  the  635 
said  rector  and  inhabitants,  &c.  and  their  succes- 
sors, although  express  mention  of  ihe  true  and 
yearly  value  in  certainty  of  the  premises,  or  any 
of  them,  in  these  presents,  are  not  named  ;  orany 
statute,  act,  ordinance,  provision,  proclamation,  640 
or  restriction  heretofore  had,  made,  enacted,  or- 
dained, provided,  proclaimed,  and  restrained,  or 
any  other  matter,  clause,  or  thing  whatsoever  to 
the  contrary  hereof  in  any  ways  notwithstand- 
ing.   And  we  further  declare  it  to  be  our  roval  645 
wdl  and  pleasure,  that  nothing  hcrcm  contained, 
nor  any  clause  or  article  herein  above  meiUioJied, 
shall  be  construed  or  taken  to  abridge  or  take 
away  any  right,  privilege,  benefit,  liberty,  or  li- 
cense that  we  have  heretofore  granted  unto  anv  650 
church  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  fait  Is  with- 
in our  said  province  of  \ew-York,  anything  con- 
tained herein  to  the  contrary  hereof  in  any  ways 
notwithstanding.  In  testimony  whereof ,  we  have 
.caused  the  great  seal  of  our  said  province  to  be  655 
hereunto  affixed.    Witne.ss  our  trusty  and  well- 
beloved  Benjamin  Ffletcher,  our  captain-general, 
and  governor  in  chief  of  our  province  of  New- 


56 


York,  and  the  territories  and  tracts  of  land  de- 
060  pending  tiiereon  in  America,  and  vice-admiral  of 
tlie  same,  our  lieutenant  and  commander  in  t:liief 
of  the  militia,  and  of  all  the  forces  by  sea  and  land 
wit'  in  our  cohjuy  of  Connecticut,  and  of  all  the 
forts  and  places  of  strengtii  within  the  same,  in 
665  Counc  1,  at  our  fort  in  New- York,  the  sixth  day 
of  May,  in  the  ninth  year  of  our  reign,  annoq. 
Dini.,'lG97. 

BEN.  FFLETCHEH. 
By  his  Excellency's  command, 
David  Jamison,  Sec'ry. 

AN  ACT. 

For  making  such  Alterations  in  the  Charter  of  the  Corporation 
of  Trinity  CImrch,  as  to  render  it  more  conformahlc  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  State. 

Passed  17th  April,  1784. 

Whereas  by  letters  patent  under  the  great  seal  of  the 
then  colony,  and  now  State  of  New- York,  bearin<i 
icim .  t.   j^^^       sixth  day  of  May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  six  hundred  and  ninety-seven,  many  of  the 
gjy,g^f        inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York,  members 
charter,  diited   of  the  Churcli  of  Ensfland,  were  erected  into  a 
corporation,  by  the  name  and  style  oi  the  Kector 
and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New- York,  of  the  Protestant 
Church  of  England,  as  by  Law  established. 

And  whereas,  on  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  June,  in  the 
Preamble  J^ar  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred 
and  four,  the  Legislature  of  the  then  colony,  and 
now  state  aforesaid,  did  pass  a  law,  entitled,  "An  Act  Tor 
rriviicjosjrraiii- "granting  sundry  Privileges  and  Powers  to  the 
cdju.i^27ri70J.  u  iiecror  n.nd  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New- 
"York,  in  Communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  bylaw 
"established." 


57 


And  whereas  those  parts  of  the  said  charter 

...  ,  ~  Preamble. 

which  render  necessary  the  induction  ot  a  rec- 
tor to  the  said  church  by  the  governor,  according  to  such 
instructions  as  he  shall  from  time  to  time  receive  from  his 
Britannic  ninjesty,and  such  other  parts  of  the  said  Recitinj  parts 
charter  and  law  as  admit  and  acknowledge  that  "n^oliti^IiV^n^J" 
rights  exist  in  the  bishop  of  London,  in  and  over  wini  the  consti- 
the  said  church,  are  inconsistent  with  the  spirit 
and  letter  of  the  constitution  of  this  state. 

And  whereas  certain  other  parts  of  the  said  ^ 
charter  and  law,  and  of  a  certain  other  law  pas- 
sed  the  twentv-second  day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  one  thousand  six  hundred  and  ninet3--thrce,   Rr^nin^ other 
bv  the  Legislature  of  the  then  cf)lonv  aforesaid,  .f^ .|^d 
entitled,  "An  Act  for  settling  a  Ministry,  and  rai-  ia»E  against  the 
"sing  a  Maintainance  for  them  in  the  Cit^'^of  New  ty  d('ti:ri»ed  bv 
"York,  and  County  of  Richmond,  Westchester,  eon^t.tufon. 
"and  Queen's  County,"  are  contradictory  to  that  equality 
of  religious  rights  which  is  designed  to  be  established  by 
the  constitution  of  this  state  : 

I.    Be  it  therefore  cnac/ed  hy  the  people  of  the  state  of  New- 
York,  represented  in.  Senate  and  Assembhj,  and  it  is  herehij  en- 
acted bij  the  authority  of  the  same,  that  so  much  of  the  char- 
ter to  the  said  body  corpornte  above  particularly 
mentioned,  and  so  much  of  the  said  law  first  a- ^'1,^ 
bnve  particularly  mentioned,  as  relate  to  the  in-  reiatin? to  the 

.  i  .  ,       .  ,  church  repealed 

duclionot  the  rector  by  the  governor,  to  the  powers 
or  authority  o(  the  bisho[)  of  London,  in  and  over  the  said  cor- 
poration, and  to  the  collecting  and  levying  a  sum  of  money 
upon  the  city  of  New-York,  tor  tlie  use  of  the  rector  or  in- 
cuml)ent  in  the  said  law  mentioned,  be,  and  they  ch.arter  rights 
are  iiereby  repealed  and  annulled  ;  and  that  no- p'*^?"="«'';. 

.  1  '         .  withstanding 

thing  in  this  law,  nor  no  nonuser  or  misuser,  be-  non-u^er or mis- 
tween  the  nineteenth  day  of  April,  one  thousand 
seven  hundred  and  sevent^'-five,  and  the  passing  of  this 
law,  shall  be  in  any  wise  construed  to  annul,  injure,  repead, 
or  make  void  the  said  charter,  or  the  said  law  brst  above 
particularly  mentioned,  where  the  same  are  not  inconsistent 
with  the  constitution  ol  this  slate. 

IL  And  be  it  further  enacted,  and  it  is  hereby  enacted  by 
the  anthority  aforesaid,  that  the  church-wardens  churchwardens 
and  vestrymen  of  the  said  corporation,  or  a  ma-  "oJlairand i^!" 
jorily  of  them,  be  vested  with  full  powers  to  call      a  rector. 


58 


and  indict  a  rector  to  the  said  church,  so  often  as  there 
shall  l)e  any  vacancy  therein. 

And  whereas  doubts  have  arisen  on  those  parts  of  the 
p  ambi       ^^^^  charter  and  law  first  above  mentioned,  which 
speak  of  inhabitants  in  communion  of  the  said 
churcli  of  England  ;  for  removal  whereof; 

III.    3e  it.  further  enacted  hy  the  authority  aforesaid,  that 
all  persons  professing  themselves  members  of  the  Episco- 
f  pal  Church,  who  shall  either  hold,  occupy,  or 

Descnpii     of  r    .  ,i  -i     i         i  I     u  11 

persons  :  cnjoy  a  pcw  or  seat  m  ine  said  church,  and  shall 
Jo a'Mii  .  1. regularly  pay  to  the  support  of  the  said  church, 
ter right  j^^j  such  othcrs  as  shall  in  the  said  church  par- 
take <.i  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  at  least 
once  ii'  every  year,  being  inhabitants  of  the  city  and  county 
of  New-York,  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  rights,  privileges, 
benelil and  emoluments,  which  in  and  by  the  said  charter 
and  l;'^v  first  above  mentioned,  are  designed  to  be  secured 
to  the  inhabitants  of  tlie  city  of  New-York  in  communion 
of  the  Church  of  England. 

Jind  whereas  by  the  events  of  war,  and  in  consequence 
of  the  capture  of  the  city  of  New-York  by  the 
Prei^mbie.  j^j-^^^pg  q{-  j^jg  Britannic  majesty,  many  of  the  well- 
Bescribir-  !io  affected  inhabitants  of  the  said  city,  who  by  the 
for"memi.  r-  of  Said  charter  and  law  were  entitled  to  vote  for 
the  cori.oniiion  [j^(,t^ijgj-g  Q,f  (jj^  g;,;^]  corporation,  were  prevent- 
ed from  the  due  exercise  of  their  rights,  and  man}'  others 
who  r<Mnained  in  this  city,  were  deterred  from  voting  by 
well-grounded  apprehensions  of  the  forces  of  his  Britannic 
majf  st^-,  then  in  possession  of  the  said  city  ;  by  reason 
wher;  :  no  elections  were  held,  but  under  the  influence  of 
the  sjn  v  .:rnment  of  Great- Britain,  then  actually  at  open 
■war  vv  uli  this  state  ; 

A/id  whereas  the  council  appointed  by  the  act 
of  the  Legislature,  entitled,  "  An  Act  to  provide 
"  for       emporary  government  of  the  southern  parts  of  this 
,,,„     "  state,  whenever  the  enemy  shall  abandon  or 
{h™iar'  '  'n'cii  "  shrill  l^e  disjx>sscssetl  of  tbc  sam.e,  and  until  the 
"Legislature   can    be  convened,"   passed  the 
•fficos.  twenty-third  of  October,  one  thousand  seven 

humli  ;  and  seventy-nine,  upon  the  pelition  of  sundry  per- 
sons, st\ ling  themselves  memliers  of  the  said  church  ;  and 
after  a  full  hearing  of  sundry  other  persons,  claiming  to  be 
the  ciiurch-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  the  said  church,  re- 


59 


citing  that  there  was,  in  the  opinion  of  the  council,  reason 
to  believe  that  the  dissentions  respecting  the  said  church 
might  materially  endanger  the  peace  of  the  said  city,  did, 
in  effect,  determine  the  said  places  of  church-wardens  and 
vestrymen  to  be  vacant ;  apd  by  their  ordinance, 
dated  the  twelfth  day  of  January,  one  thousand  corporation  ves- 
seven  hundred  and  eighty-four,  did  vest  the  es-  ^  p"'""^- 
tate,  real  and  personal,  of  the  said  corporation,  in  James 
Duane,  Francis  Lewis,  Lewis  Morris,  Isaac  Sears,  William 
Duer,  Daniel  Dunscomb,  Anthony  Lispenard,  John  Ruth- 
erford, and  William  Bedlow,  to  be  retained  and  kept  by 
them,  or  any  five  of  them,  until  such  time  as  further  legal 
provir^ions  should  be  made  in  the  premises  ; 

A)id  whereas  it  appears,  that  the  following  persons  have  been 
nominated  and  chosen,  by  a  very  respectable  preamble 
number  of  the  members  of  the  said  corporation 
and  society,  as  church-wardens  and  vestrymen,  and  by 
their  humble  petition  have  prayed  that  the  said  persons  may 
be  appointed  as  such. 

IV.  Be  it  therefore  further  enacted,  and  it  is  herebij  enacted 
by  the  (luthoritij  aforesaid,  that  James  Dua.nf^  and  p,«sent  church- 
Robert  R.  Livingston  be  the  present  (i^^\rc\i-'l'^'^\'[^^^^^^^-_ 
wardf'ns  of  the  said  corporation  ;  and  that  An-  "d- 
thonv  Griffiths,  Hercules  Mulligan,  Marinus  Willet,  John 
Stevens,  Robert  Troup,  Thomas  Tucker,  Joshua  Sands, 
Ricliird  Morris,  Francis  Lewis,  Lewis  Morris,  Isaac  Sears, 
Daniel  Dunscomb,  William  Bedlow,  William  Duer,  John 
Ruth  rford,  Anthony  Lispenard,  Thomas  Grenneil,  William 
Mercier,  Thomas  Tillotson.and  Christopher  Miller,  be  the  ves- 
trymi'U  of  the  said  corporation  ;  the  said  church-  Their  contiou- 
ward  'ns  and  vestrymen  to  hold  their  places  un-  aucemoffice. 
til  th'"  first  usual  day  of  election  for  church-wardens  and 
vesti  vmen,  which  shall  be  held  after  Easter  Sunday,  which 
will  lie  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hun- 
dred and  eighty-five  ;  and  that  in  the  mean  time  in  case  of 
any  vacancy  by  death  or  resignation  of  the  rec- vacancies  how 
tor,  or  either  of  the  church-wardens  or  vestrymen,'"  ""^  "p- 
such  vacancy  to  be  filled  up  by  the  rem  uning  church-war- 
dens and  vestrymen,  in  such  manner  as  is  prescribed  in  and 
by  the  charter  and  law  constituting  the  said  corporation  as 
aforesaid. 

V.  Provided  nevertheless,  and  be  it  further  enacted,  by  the  au- 


60 


Proviso       thority  aforesaid,  that  nothing  in  this  act  contained, 
shall  be  construed,  deemed,  or  taken  to  preju- 
Savin"  the  ri''ht  ^^'^^      injure  the  right  or  title  of  any  person  or 
or  title  of  claim-  persons  whatsocver,  to  any  of  the  lands  or  tcne- 
iBents  occupied  or  claimed  by  the  corporation 

aforesaid. 

And  in  order  fully  to  carry  into  full  effect  those  parts  of 
the  constitution  of  this  state  which  declare,  that  the  free  ex- 
ercise and  enjoyment  of  religious  profession  and  worship, 
without  discrimination  or  preference,  shall  for  ever  here- 
after be  allowed  within  this  state  to  all  mankind,  and  that 
all  acts  of  the  Legislature  of  this  state  while  a  colonVr  and 
all  parts  thereof  which  may  be  construed  to  establish  or 
maintain  any  particular  denomination  of  Christians,  or  their 
ministers,  be  abrogatetl  and  reject<3d  as  repugnant  to  the 
said  constitution. 

And  in  order  to  remove  all  doubts  which  may  arise  in 
Preamble,  thc  minds  of  any  persons  with  respect  to  the  con- 
tinuance, force,  and  effect  of  a  certain  act  of  the 
Reciting  certain  Legislature  of  this  state  while  a  colony,  passed  on 
the  twenty-second  day  of  September,  one  thousand 
six  hundred  and  ninety-three,  entitled,  "  An  Act  for  set- 
*'tlinga  Ministry,  and  raising  a  Maintenance  for  them  in  the 
"  City  of  New-York,  County  of  Richmond,  Westchester,  and 
"  the  Queen's  County  ;"  and  also  of  one  other  act,  passed 
on  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  June,  one  thousand  seven  hun- 
dred and  four,  entitled,  "  An  Act  for  granting  sunch-y  Pri- 
"vilegesand  Powers  to  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the 
"  City  of  New- York,  of  the  Communion  of  the  Church  of 
"England,  as  by  Law  established;"  and  also  of  another 
act,  passed  on  the  fourth  day  of  August,  one  thousand  seven 
,^p,yj„„ 3 p^^.  hundred  and  five,  entitled,  "An  Act  for  tiie  bet- 
cminenceonho  u  tBT  exfjlainino;  and  more  effectually  nutiiiia  in 

Church  of  Eiig-  '  .  yi  i      a  i  i 

land  above  "Exccution  an  Act  ot  (jcneral  Assemblv,  en- 
"  titled.  An  Act  for  settling  a  Ministry,  an(i  rais- 
"  ing  a  Maintenance  for  them  in  the  City  of  New- York, 
"County  of  Richmond,  Westchester,  and  Queen's  County  ;" 
and  also  of  one  other  act,  passed  on  the  twenty-seventh 
day  of  July,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  twenty-one, 
entitled,  "  An  Act  for  the  more  equal  and  impartial  asses- 
"sihg  the  Minister  and  Poor's  Tax,  to  be  raised  within  the 
"City  and  County  of  New- York,  Queen's  County,  VVest- 
"  Chester  County,  and  the  County  of  Richmond  ;"  and  also 


61 


of  one  other  act,  passed  the  twenty-first  day  of  September, 
one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  forty-four,  entitled,  "  An 
"  Act  to  aher  the  Time  of  electing  Vestrymen  nnd  Church- 
*' wardens  in  Richmond  County  ;"  and  also  certain  parts  of 
one  other  act,  passed  the  twenty-ninth  day  of  November, 
one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  forty-five,  entitled,  "  An 
"Act  to  enable  the  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New-York,  to 
"choose  annually  two  Vestrymen  for  each  respective  Ward 
"  within  the  said  City,"  which  do  grant  certain  Immunities, 
Emoluments,  and  Privileges  to  the  Episcopal  Church,  or 
that  mode  of  Religious  Worship,  commonly  called  the 
Church  of  England,  in  the  City  and  County  of  New-York, 
and  the  Counties  of  Richmond,  Queen's  and  Westchester, 
and  do  establish  and  maintain  the  Ministers  of  that  De- 
nomination within  the  said  Counties  ;  and  do  also  declare 
or  imply  a  pre-eminence  or  distinction  of  the  said  Episcopal 
Church,  or  Church  of  England,  over  all  other  churches  and 
other  religious  denominations. 

VI.  Be  it  therefore  further  enacted  bij  the  authority  aforcmii, 
that  the  said  acts  for  settling  the  ministry,  and  mising  a 
maintenance  for  them  in  the  citv  of  New-York,  counties  of 
Richmond,  Westchester,  and  Queen's  county,  for  surh  acts  re- 
granting  sundry  privileges  and  powers  to  iherec- 
tor  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  of  the  cominu- 
nion  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  law  established,  for 
the  better  explaining  and  more  effectually  putting  in  execu- 
tion an  act  of  the  General  Assembly,  entitled,  "  An  Act  for 
"  setiling  the  Ministry  and  raising  a  Maintenance  for  ihem 
"in  the  City  ot'New- York,  County  of  Richmond,  Westches- 
"  ter,  and  Queen's  County,  for  the  more  e(|ual  and  impartial 

assessing  the  Minister  and  Poor's  Tax,  to  be  raised  in  the 
"City  and  County  of  New-York,  Queen's  County,  West- 
"  Chester  County,  and  the  County  of  Richmond,"  fur  "alter- 
"  ingthe  Time  of  electing  Vestrymen  and  Church-wardens 
"in  Richmond  County  ;"  and  also  such  certain  parts  of  the 
act  tor  "enabling  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-Y(irk  to 
choose  annually  two  vestrymen  for  eac  h  respective  ward 
within  the  said  city,"  as  do  imply  such  pre-eminence  and 
distinction,  be,  and  are  hereby  declared  lobe  fully  and  ab- 
solutely abrogated,  abolished,  annulled,  repealed,  and 
made  void,  as  inconsisttint  with,  and  repugnant  to  the  con- 
stitution of  this  slate  :  And  it  is  h(  - -by  further  declared, 
that  nothing  in  this  act  contained  sh^.l  in  any  wise  be  con- 


62 


strued  or  understood  to  give  any  kind  of  pre-eminence  or 
distinction  to  the  Episcopal  mode  of  religious  worship  with- 
Equaiiiy  be- ^his  State  ;  but  that  an  universal  equality  be- 
dlnorainalio'ur  cvcry  rellgious  denomination,  according 

to  the  true  spirit  of  the  constitution,  towards  each 
other,  shall  for  ever  prevail. 

VII.  A?id  he  it  further  enacted  by  the  -CMthoritij  aforesaid, 
thatnothingin  this  actcontained,  shall  be  deemed,  esteemed, 
adjudged,  or  construed,  to  enlarge  or  confirm  any  right, 
power,  or  authority,  but  such  as  the  said  corporation  legally 
had,  held,  and  enjoyed  on  the  nineteenth  day  of  April,  one 
thousand  seven  hundred  and  seventy-five,  and  such  other 
powers,  rights  and  authorities  as  are  expressly  given  by 
this  act. 


AN  ACT 

To  cvahle  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  City  of 
New-York,  to  assume  the  Name  therein  mentioned. 

Passed  10th  March,  1788. 

Whekeas  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city 
Preamble  of  Ncw-York,  wcrc,  by  an  act  of  the  Legislature 
of  the  late  colony  of  New-York,  passed  the  twenty- 
seventh  day  of  June,  in  the  ye;ir  one  thousand  seven  hun- 
dred and  four,  enabled  to  sue  and  be  sued,  plead  and  be  im- 
pleaded, answer  and  be  answered  unto,  defend  and  be  defend- 
ed, by  the  name  of  the  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of 
New- York,  in  Communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by 
Law  established.  And  whereas  the  said  act  was  repealed 
by  the  Legislature  of  th;s  State,  on  the  seventeenth  day  of 
April,  in  the  year  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty- 
four  ;  i)ut  the  said  corporation  have  continued  to  use  the 
name  therein  specified,  and  by  their  humble  petition  to  the 
Legislature  of  this  State,  have  prayed  that  they  may  be 
enabled  to  assume  and  use  the  name  of  "  The  Hector  and 
"  Inhal)itants  of  the  City  of  New- York,  in  Communion  of 
"the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of  New- 
York."  Therefore 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  people  of  the  State  of  New-  York,  repre- 
sented in  the  Senate  and  Assembly,  and  it  is  hereby  enacted  by 


63 


..    the  authority  of  the  same,  that  the  said  corporation 

Corporation"-  V    J  '  '  , 

of  T  r i  n  i  t y  gtiall  and  may,  from  and  immediately  after  the 
aDdufe'a  r^w  passing  of  this  act,  take  and  use  the  name  o-'  the 
"uTa^dbelued  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New-York, 
thereby.  jjj  Communionof  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  State  of  New-York  ;  and  by  the  same  name  shall  be 
capable  to  sue  and  be  sued,  plead  and  be  impleaded,  an- 
swer and  be  answered  unto,  defend  and  be  defended  ;  and 
And  all  that  all  grants,  deeds,  and  conveyances  made  to 
grants  made  or  by  the  Said  corporation,  between  the  said  sev- 
Mder''^'thrir  enteenth  day  of  April,  in  the  year  one  thousand 
between"  «r:  scvcn  huudrcd  and  eighty-four!^  and  the  passing  of 
*^^d°'"'°'"'  ^^^^  ^^^■>  wherein  they  are  named  or  mentioned  by 
the  name  of  the  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the 
City  of  New-York,  in  Communion  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, as  by  law  established,  or  any  other  name  or  names, 
shall  be  good,  valid  and  effectual  in  law,  in  like  manner  as 
they  w^ould  have  been  if  the  said  act,  passed  the  twenty- 
seventh  day  of  June,  in  the  year  one  thousand  seven  hun- 
dred and  four,  had  never  been  repealed,  or  as  they  would 
respectively  have  been  if  the  said  corporation  had  been 
properh'  named  in  such  grants,  deeds,  or  conveyances. 


AN  ACT 

To  alter  the  name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in 
New-  York,  and  for  oilier  Purposes. 

Passed  January  25th,  1814. 

Whereas,  at  the  time  of  passing  the  act,  entitled,  "  An 
Recital.  "  Act  for  making  such  alterations  in  ihe  Charter  of 
"  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  as  to  render  it  more  con- 
'*  formable  to  the  Constitution  of  the  State,"  and  for  some  years 
afterwards,  the  said  corporation,  although  possessing  seve- 
ral places  of  public  worship  besides  Trinity  Church,  was 
the  only  incorporated  religious  society  in  the  city  of  New- 
York  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
this  State  ;  but  several  other  religious  societies,  of  the  same 
denomination,  have  since  been  formed  in  the  said  city,  and 
duly  incorporated.  And  whereas,  by  an  act  passed  the 
tenth  day  of  March,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1788,  the  said 
corporation  of  Trinity  Church  was  enabled  to  take  and  use 
the  name  of  "  The  Rector  and  Inhabitants  i.f  the  City  of 


64 


New- York  in  Communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
"  Church  in  the  State  of  New-York  ;"  which  name  the  said 
corporation,  by  their  petition  to  the  Legislature,  prny  may 
be  altered,  as  having  now  become  improj)er  ;  and  that  such 
further  legislative  provisions  may  be  made  as  to  remove  all 
doubts  respecting  their  charter  rights,  occasioned  by  the 
formation  of  other  religious  societies  in  the  said  city  of  New- 
York.  Therefore 

I.  Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Pcojilc  of  the  State  of  New-  York, 
represented  in  Senate  and  A^sembJij,  That  from  and  after  the 
passing  of  this  act,  the  said  coi  poration  of  Trinity  Church, 
instead  of  their  present    name,  shnll  take  and  use  the 

Corporate  name  of  "  The  Rector,    Church-Warden^*,  and 
nume.    n  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  City  of 
New-York." 

II.  And  he  it  further  enacted,  That  all  male  persons  of 
Persons qudi-  ^^^^  ^"^"■i  who,  for  tlic  spacc  of  OHO  year  preceding 
ficdtovote.  any  election,  shall  have  been  members  of  the  con- 
gregation of  Trinity  Church  aforesaid,  or  any  of  the  chapels 
belonging  to  the  same,  and  forming  part  of  the  same  religious 
corporation,  and  who  shall  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or 
seat  in  Trinity  Church,  or  in  any  of  the  said  chapels,  or  have 
partaken  of  the  holy  communion  therein  within  the  said  year, 
and  no  other  persons,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  annual 
elections  for  the  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  thi!  said 
corporation. 

III.  And  he  it  further  enacted,  That  all  grants  and  con- 
corporation  veyauccs  heretofore  made,  or  that  hereatler  may 

may  pant    [jemadc  bv  tlic  Said  corooraliou  of  Th n i t v  C h n fch 

lands  to  other  J       ^  1  i    "i  t 

corporations,  of  auy  of  their  lands,  tenements,  and  heredita- 
ments, to  aijy  other  religious  society,  now  incorporated,  or 
that  may  hereafter  be  duly  incorporated,  shall  be  and  the 
same  are  hereby  declared  to  be  valid  and  effectual,  accord- 
Proviso  '"S  '•^^  tenor  thereof;  provided  the  annual 
value  of  such  lands,  tenements,  and  hereditaments, 
at  the  time  of  such  grant  or  conveyance,  together  with  the 
other  estate  real  and  personal  of  such  other  religious  corpo- 
rations, shall  not  exceed  the  annual  sum  which  they  are  or 
may  l)e  respectively  entitled  to  hold. 

IV.  And.  whereas  Saint  George's  Church,  in  the  city  of 
Reeitai.   Ncw-York,  formerly  called  Saint  George's  Chapel, 

was  one  of  the  Chapels  lieretotbre  belonging  to  the 
corporationof  Trinity  Church,  and  the  pew-holders  in  the  said 
h  apel,and  others  qualified  according  to  the  charter  of  Trini- 


65 


ty  Church  and  the  laws  of  the  State,  were  corporators  of  the 
said  corporation  of  Trinity  Church.  And  whereas,  by  mu- 
tual agreement  and  consent,  the  said  chapel,  called  Saint 
George's  Chapel,  with  such  of  the  corporators  of  the  corpo- 
ration of  Trinity  Church  as  belonged  thereto,  or  statedly 
worshipped  in  the  said  chapel,  have  been  set  off,  and  organ- 
ized as  a  distinct  religious  society,  and  have  incorporated 
themselves- as  such,  under  the  name  of  the  Rector,  Church- 
Wardens,  and  Vestrymen  of  St.  George's  Church  in  the 
city  of  New-York  :  and  the  corporation  of  Trinitj' Church 
have  granted  to,  or  vested  in  the  said  newly  incorporated 
religious  society,  the  exclusive  right  to  the  said  chapel,  with 
the  appurtenances,  and  which  are  now  enjoyed  accordingly  : 
but  doubts  are  entertained  as  to  the  legal  validity  of  the 
said  transaction. 

Therefore  Icit  further  e/iac^et?.  That  the  separation  of  Saint 
George's  Chapel,  in  the  city  of  New- York,  from  the  ^^^^^^  ^ 
corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  shall  be,  and  hereby  ciuirchdeciar'- 
is  confirmed  :  and  that  the  said  church,  now  called  churcr''from 
Saint  George's  Church,  shall  not  at  any  time  here- '^"""^ 
after  be  held  or  taken  to  be  a  church  or  chapel  belonging 
to  Trinity  Church,  so  as  to  qualify  any  of  the  congregation 
thereof  to  vote  at  the  elections  of  church-wardens  and  ves- 
trvmen  of  Trinity  Church  above  mentioned.  And  the  said 
religious  society  called  the  rector,  church-wardens,  and  ves- 
tiymen  of  Saint  George's  Church,  in  the  city  of  New- York, 
shall  have  a  right  to  all  the  temporalities  derived  ^j,^  po«.=e<5 
from  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  as  afore- jl^^^ep^r^'e  es- 
said,  and  may  enjoy  the  same  in  as  full  and  bene- 
ficial a  manner  as  any  such  religious  corporation  can 
hold  and  enjoy  its  temporalities,  howsoever  the  same  may 
be  acquired. 

V.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  when,  and  as  often  as 
it  shall  seem  expedient  to  the  said  rector,  church- 
wardens, and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  j^*;°''p°™"j,°JJ^ 
citvof  New-York,to  divide  the  congregation  or  cor-^'j-er  cimrcii- 
porators  belonging  to  the  said  corporation,  it  shall 
be  lawful  for  them  so  to  do,  by  setting  apart,  as  a  sepa- 
rate Church,  any  of  the  churches  or  shapels  that  may 
belong  to  and  form  part  of  the  said  corporation,  provided  the 
same  be  done  with  the  assent  of  a  majority  of  the  p^.^^.^^^ 
persons  entitled  to  vole  as  aforesaid,  who  shall 
belong  to  such  church  or  chapel  intended  to  be  set  a- 


66 


part,  and  who  shall  attend  a  meeting  to  consider  of  such 
separation  after  at  least  ten  days  notice, previously  given  for 
that  purpose  in  the  said  church  or  chapel,  during  or  imme- 
diately after  divine  service  :  and  such  separation  so  assent- 
ed to  shall  take  effect  according  to  the  terms  agreed  upon 
between  the  parties  ;  and  the  members  of  the  congregation 
of  such  church  or  chapel  so  separated,  shall  immediately 
thereafter  cease  to  be  members  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
Church  above  mentioned,  and  may  proceed  to  incorporate 
themselves  according  to  law  as  a  separate  congregation  of 
the  said  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  ;  and  being  so  incor- 
porated, may  receive  from  the  said  corporation  of  the  Trin- 
ity Church,  any  grant,  conveyance,  or  gift  of  any  chapel  or 
other  real  or  personal  estate  for  its  separate  use,  and  may 
hold  and  enjoy  the  same  accordingly,  as  fully  and  benefi- 
cially as  any  such  religious  corporation  can  hold  and  enjoy 
its  temporalities,  howsoever  the  same  may  be  acquired. 
VI.  A7id  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  every  case  where 
No  religious  ^  church  or  religious  society  which  has  been,  or 
society  bouud  mav  bc  dulv  incorporated,  shall  have  exhibited 

to  file  aninven-        ^.  ^  ^  , 

tory  unless  such  accouut  aud  mvcutory  as  is  specifiea  in  the 
Idduionai'pio- ninth*  section  of  the  act  entitled,  "An  Act  to 
perty.  providc  for  the  Incorporation  of  religious  So- 
cieties," it  shall  not  be  necessary  for  such  church  or 
society  again  to  exhibit  any  account  and  inventory, 
unless  the  said  church  or  society,  subsequently  to  such  ex- 
hibition, shall  have  purchased  or  acquired  any  lands,  tene- 
ments, or  hereditaments  within  this  state,  any  act,  law  or 
usage  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding  :  Provided  always, 
that  nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be  construed  to  af- 
fect, or  defeat  the  right  of  any  person  or  persons,  or  of 
any  body  corporate,  to  the  estate,  real  or  personal,  now 
held,  occupied,  or  enjoyed  by  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
Church. 


[NoTR. — The  Petition  of  tlie  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  for 
the  Act  of  1814  was  appenrled  to  Judire  Troup's  remarks,  prece- 
ding the  following  Memorial ;  but  inasmuch  as  it  is  inserted  "  in 
hcBC  verba"  in  the  recent  Remonstrance  of  tliat  Corporation  which 
is  also  printed,  it  has  not  been  considered  necessary  to  swell  out 
this  pamphlet  by  its  repetition  here.] 

*  [The  <c)t</i  section  of  llie  law  as  revised  and  re  enacted  in  1813,  vide  a 
previous  note. 


67 


MEMORIAL 

OF  THOMAS  FARMAR  AND  OTHERS. 

To  the  Honorable  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New-  York  : 

The  Memorial  of  the  Subscribers,  Members  of  the  Protestant 
Einscopal  Church,  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New-TorJc, 

Respectfully  showeth, 

That  in  the  year  1697  a  charter  was  granted  by  the 
Governor  of  the  then  provhice  of  New-York,  whereby  all 
persons  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
who  were  then  inhabitants,  or  who  might  thereafter  inhabit 
the  city  of  New-York,  were  incorporated  by  the  name  of 
the  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New-York,  in 
Communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  law  estab- 
lished. 

That  in  the  year  1788  an  act  was  passed,  authorizing 
the  said  corporation  to  assume  the  name  of  the  Rector  and 
Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New-York,  in  communion  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of  New- York. 

That  under  colour  of  this  act,  or  under  some  other  pre- 
tence, the  congregation  of  Trinity  Church,  the  members  of 
which  are  but  a  very  small  proportion  of  the  Episcopal  in- 
habitants of  the  said  city,  have  usurped  all  the  privileges, 
and  taken  into  their  possession  all  the  property  of  the  corpo- 
ration ;  thereb}^  disfranchising,  in  respect  to  the  said  char- 
ter, a  great  majority  of  the  Episcopal  inhabitants  of  the  city. 

That  your  memorialists  have  learned,  with  great  alarm, 
that  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  which  is  a  body  elected 
by  the  members  of  that  congregation  solely,  have  appointed 
a  deputation  to  proceed  to  Albany,  and  to  use  their  influ- 
ence to  obtain  from  the  Legislature  an  act  to  confirm  their 
unjust  usurpations.  * 

Your  memorialists  herewith  submit  to  your  Honorable 
Body  a  copy  of  the  charter  above  referred  to,  and  of  the 
laws  of  the  State  which  have  been  passed  in  reference  to 
the  same. 

And  they  humbly  pray  that  no  law  may  be  passed 
which  will  sanction  the  unjust  proceedings  of  Trinity 
Church,  or  that  may  affect  the  rights  of  the  Episcopal  inhab- 
itants of  the  city,  who  are  not  members  of  the  Congrega- 
tion of  Trinity  Church,  but  who  have  equal  claims  with 
them  to  the  privileges  and  benefits  of  the  charier. 


68 


Signed  by  order  and  in  the  behalf  of  the  committee  ap- 
pointed by  the  general  meetingof  Episcopalians  at  Mechanic 
Hall,  and  in  virtue  of  the  third  and  fourth  resolutions  adop- 
ted at  said  meeting,  a  copy  of  which  is  herewith  presented. 

THOS.  FARMAR,  Chairman. 
Benj.  Ferris,  Sec'y,  P.  T. 
New-York,  March  3d,  1813. 

I  certify  the  preceding  to  be  a  true  copy  of  a  memorial 
on  file  in  the  Senate  of  this  Slate. 

S.  VISSCHER,  Clerk. 


RESOLUTION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY. 

State  of  New-  York  : 

I?i  Assembly,  March  25th,  1813. 
Resolved,  that  the  Attorney  General  be,  and  he  hereby 
is  requested  to  report  to  this  House,  whether  in  his  opinion 
the  passage  of  the  bill  entitled,  "  An  Act  to  alter  the  Name 
"of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  New- York,  and 
"  for  other  Purposes,"  would  in  any  wise  defeat  or  vary 
any  existing  vested  rights  under  the  charter  granted  May 
6th,  1097,  to  "  the  Rector  and  Inhabitants,  in  communion 
"of  the  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  now  established 
"  by  our  laws,"  or  under  anv  acts  altering  the  said  charter. 
By  order,  ""JAS.  VAN  INGEN,  Clerk. 


REPORT  OF  THE  ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 

Li  Assembly,  March  26th,  1S13. 

State  of  New- York. 

.  The  Attorney-General,  in  obedienoe  to  the  resolution  of 
the  Hon.  the  Assembly  of  the  25th  day  of  March  instant, 
Reported, 

That  he  has  examined  a  printed  copy  of  the  charter, 
granted  in  the  year  1697,  to  the  rector  and  inhabitants  of 
the  city  of  New-Yoi'k,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant 
Church  of  England,  as  then  estabhshed  by  law,  and  the 
acts  altering  the  said  charter,  together  with  the  bill  referred 
to  in  the  said  resolution,  entitled,  "  An  Act  to  alter  the  name 
"of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  City  of  New- 
"  York,  and  for  other  Purposes,"  and  that  he  is  of  opinion. 


I 


69 


that  the  passage  of  the  said  bill  will  not  defeat  or  vary  any 
existing  vested  rights  under  the  said  charter  and  acts. 
All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

ABRAHAM  VAN  VECHTEN, 

Attorney-General. 

I  certify  the  preceding  to  be  a  true  copy  of  the  original 
report  of  the  Attorney-General,  made  to  the  House  of  As- 
sembly, April  9th,  1813. 

JAS.  VAN  INGEN, 

Clerk  of  the  House  of  Assembly. 


OBJECTION 

Of  the  Council  of  Revision  to  the  Bill  entitled,  "  An  Act  grant- 
"  ing  Relief  in  certain  Cases  to  the  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of 
"  New-York,  and  to  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Town  of  Brooklyn, 
"  in  King's  County." 

In  Council  of  Revision,  January  30,  1810. 
The  Council  object  to  the  bill  entitled,  "An  KoX  granting 
"  Relief  in  certain  Cases  to  the  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of 
"  New-York,  and  to  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Town  of  Brook- 
"  lyn,  in  King's  County,"  as  improper  to  become  a  law  of 
this  State  : 

Because,  if  the  conveyance  across  the  East  River,  of  the 
goods,  wares,  and  merchandizes,  described  in  the  bill,  is  not 
interfered  with  by  private  rights,  its  provisions  are  useless  : 
and  if  any  such  rights  are  claimed  or  exist,  they  are  appro- 
priately and  exclusively  of  judicial  cognizance. 

ELISHA  JENKINS,  Secretary. 


r 


STATE  OF  NEW-YORK. 


IVo.  117. 


IN  SENATE,     .  , 

April  9,  1846. 


REPORT 

Of  Mr.  Clark,  from  the  committee  on  charitable  and 
religious  societies,  on  memorial  of  inhabitants  of 
the  city  of  New-York,  in  relation  to  Trinity 
Church. 

Mr.  Clark,  from  the  committee  on  charitable  and  religious  societies, 
to  which  were  referred  the  memorial  of  certain  inhabitants  of  the  city 
of  New-York,  in  communion  of  the  protestant  episcopal  church  ia 
the  city  of  New-York,  praying  for  the  repeal  or  modification  of  an 
act  passed  January  25th,  1814,  entitled  "  An  act  to  alter  the  name  of 
jhe  corporation  of  Trinity  church  in  New-York,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses;" and  also  the  remonstrance  of  the  rector,  church-war- 
dens, and  vestry  men  of  Trinity  church  in  the  city  of  New-York, 
against  granting  the  prayer  of  said  memorial,  together  with  divers 
other  petitions  and  remonstrances  on  the  same  subject, 

REPORTS : 

That  your  committee  have  examined  the  questions  arising  out  of  the 
controversy  between  the  memorialists  and  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
church  as  now  constituted,  with  all  the  care  and  attention  that  their 
importance  and  difficulty  demand.  That  they  have  been  attended  by 
the  cou»sel  of  the  respective  parties,  and  have  deliberately  weighed 

[Senate,  No.  117.1  1  (u.  n.  &  750.) 


J  (Sknat« 

the  evidence,  arguments  and  authorities  that  have  been  adduced  and 
urged  before  them  ;  and  upon  mature  consideration  your  committee 
have  arrived  at  the  conclusion,  that  the  act  which  is  the  subject  of 
complaint  ought  never  to  have  been  passed  ;  and  they  consequently 
feel  it  their  duty  to  recommend  an  entire  repeal  of  all  its  provisions. 
The  reasons  that  have  led  the  minds  of  your  committee  to  this  con- 
clusion, it  will  be  their  object  in  this  report  to  set  forth  and  explain 
with  as  much  brevity  as  the  nature  of  the  subject  will  admit,  but  as 
distinctly  and  fully  as  the  magnitude  of  the  interests  involved  plainly 
requires. 

The  attention  of  the  Senate  will  be  asked  in  the  first  instance  to  a 
statement  of  the  leading  facts  of  the  case  as  they  appeared  before  your 
committee.  This  summary,  it  will  hereafter  be  seen,  is  necessary  to 
a  just  understanding  of  the  observations  that  are  to  follow. 

The  original  charter  on  which  the  claims  of  the  present  corpora- 
tion of  Trinity  church  are  founded,  was  granted  in  the  name  of  the 
King,  by  the  then  Governor  of  the  Province  of  New-York,  in  council, 
and  under  the  great  seal  of  the  Province,  in  the  year  1697.  A  full 
copy  of  this  charter  is  appended  to  the  printed  copies  of  the  memo- 
rial that  has  been  referred  to  your  committee  ;  but  your  committee 
while  they  recommend  to  every  member  of  this  honorable  body  the 
entire  perusal  of  this  remarkable  document,  will  for  the  present  con- 
tent themselves  with  referring  only  to  such  of  its  provisions  as  are 
directly  and  plainly  connected  with  the  question  that  it  has  been  their 
duty  to  consider. 

This  charter  declares  that  a  certain  church  then  recently  built  and 
erected  on  Broadway,  in  the  city  of  New-York  shall  be  the  parish 
church  of  the  parish  of  Trinity  church,  within  the  city  of  New- 
York,  (see  Memorial,  page  19  ;)  and  in  a  subsequent  clause,  that  it 
shall  be  the  sole  and  only  parish  church  of  the  said  city,  (page  25  ;) 
thus,  by  a  necessary  consequence,  making  the  bounds  of  the  parish 
identical  with  those  of  the  county. 

The  then  bishop  of  London  is  constituted  the  first  rector  of  this 
parish,  and  he  and  his  successors,  rectors  of  the  said  parish,  together 
"  with  all  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting,  and  to  inhabit 
in  our  said  city  of  New-York,  in  communion  of  our  aforesaid  church 


No.  117.  j  3 

of  England,  as  now  established  by  our  laws  arc  created  a  body 
politic  and  corporate  in  fact  and  in  name  by  the  name  of  the  rector 
and  inhabitants  of  our  said  city  of  New- York,  in  communion  of  our 
protestant  church  of  England,  as  now  established  by  our  laws." 
(Mem.  p.  19,  20.)  It  is  impossible  to  deny,  that  by  these  terms  of 
incorporation  ;  all  the  present  and  future  inhabitants  of  the  city,  in 
communion  with  the  church  of  England,  are  rendered  members  of  the 
corporation,  and  they  therefore  afford  decisive  proof,  that  the  bounds 
of  the  city  and  of  the  parish  were  identical,  and  consequently  that 
the  phrases,  inhabitants  of  the  city,  and  inhabitants  of  the  parish  as 
used  in  the  charter  were  equivalent  in  meaning.  The  provisions  in 
this  charter  relative  to  the  election  of  wardens  and  vestry-tnen  is  in 
the  following  words  :  "  And  further  we  will  and  ordain,  and  by  these 
presents  do  declare  and  appoint,  that  for  the  better  ordering  anJ 
managing  of  the  affairs  and  business  of  the  said  corporation,  there 
shall  be  annually,  and  once  in  every  year  forever,  on  the  Tuesday  in 
easterweek,  two  church  wardens  and  twenty-vestry  men,  duly  elected 
by  the  majority  of  votes  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  parish  in  com- 
munion as  aforesaid." 

Among  other  singular  provisions,  the  charter  of  1697  conferred  on 
the  rector  and  wardens,  whom  it  appointed  or  directed  to  be  chosen, 
the  extraordinary  power  of  levying  such  sums  of  money  as  might  be 
estimated  to  be  necessary  to  finish  Trinity  church  and  its  steeple,  to 
build  a  convenient  house  for  its  rector,  and  to  satisfy  the  existing 
debts  of  the  church,  by  charging  the  same,  not  upon  the  members  of 
the  corporation  exclusively,  but  upon  "  all  and  every  of  the  inhabi- 
tants in  the  said  parish,"  without  any  exception  of  those  who  were 
not  in  communion  of  the  church  of  England.  (Mem.  p.  22,  3.) 
In  other  w^ords,  an  ecclesiastical  corporation  was  empowered  to  levy 
by  its  own  action,  and  for  its  own  exclusive  benefit,  a  general  tax  of 
an  undefined  amount  on  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  and  county  of 
New-York.  Whether,  either  from  the  nature  of  its  provisions,  or  the 
defect  of  authority  in  a  Provincial  Governor  to  exercise  a  royal  pre- 
rogative, not  expressly  delegated  to  him  by  the  terms  of  his  commis- 
sion, the  charter  of  1697  was  void  in  its  creation,  is  a  question  that 
it  may  perhaps  become  necessary  for  a  court  of  justice  hereafter  to 
determine,  and  hence  it  would  be  improper  for  your  committee  to 
express  an  opinion  in  relation  to  it — nor  indeed,  in  order  to  judge  of 


4  [SiN/TE 

the  merits  of  the  controversy  and  to  warrant  the  conclusions  of  this 
report  is  it  at  all  necessary  that  any  opinion  as  to  the  original  validity 
of  the  charter  should  be  expressed  or  formed.  Whether  it  was  valid 
or  not  in  its  creation,  it  is  quite  certain  that  within  a  few  years  after 
it  was  granted,  it  was  superseded  and  abrogated  by  the  controlling 
action  of  a  paramount  authority. 

In  the  year  1704,  the  general  assembly  of  the  Province  of  New- 
York,  passed  an  act,  to  which  the  assent  of  the  crown,  through  the 
Governor  and  Council  was  given,  entitled,  "  An  act  for  granting 
sundry  privileges  and  powers  to  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city 
of  New-York,  of  communion  of  the  church  of  England  as  by  law 
established."  This  act,  for  many  reasons,  deserves  our  special  atten- 
tion ;  not  only  in  its  title,  but  in  its  form,  and  by  its  terms  it  is  an 
original  grant  of  corporate  powers  ;  neither  in  the  title,  in  the  pre- 
amble, nor  in  any  of  the  enactments  is  there  any  allusion  to  the  provi- 
sions, or  even  to  the  existence  of  a  prior  charter.  The  conclusion  from 
this  silence  seems  inevitable.  If  the  charter  of  1697  were  in  fact  the 
charter,  under  which  Trinity  Church  was  organized,  and  was  then  act- 
ing, the  general  assembly  of  1704,  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  its 
existence,  and  had  it  been  their  intention  to  recognize  its  validity  and 
merely  to  re-enact  or  alter  some  of  its  provisions,  that  intention  wo\ild 
have  been  expressly  declared.  They  would  not  have  treated  the 
charter  as  a  nullity  unless  it  was  in  fact  so  regarded. 

It  is  also  apparent,  that  the  act  of  1704,  was  meant  to  embrace  the 
whole  subject  to  which  it  relates.  It  was  a  grant  of  all  the  privi- 
leges and  powers  that  it  was  meant  that  the  corporation  which  it 
created  should  exercise  and  possess.  It  however  omits  many  import- 
ant provisions  in  the  charter  of  1697,  and  it  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  these  provisions,  some  of  which  were  in  themselves  highly  ob- 
jectionable, were  meant  to  be  left  in  force.  Hence  had  they  been 
considered  as  having  by  virtue  of  the  charter,  the  force  of  law,  they 
would  have  been  distinctly  repealed.  Your  committi  e  are  not  aware 
that  the  validity  of  the  act  of  1704,  has  evtrbeen  disputed  or  denied, 
nor  are  they  able  to  perceive  that  there  are  any  grounds  on  which  its 
validity  could  reasonably  be  drawn  in  question. 

If  the  Governor  in  Council  had  alone  the  power  to  grant  a  char- 
ter, the  authority  of  the  General  Assembly  with  the  assent  of  the 


No.  117.]  5 

Governor  and  Council  to  revoke  or  alter  its  provisions,  cannot  be 
doubted.  If  then  the  act  of  1704,  is  admitted  to  have  been  a  valid 
exercise  of  legislative  power,  whether  it  operated  as  an  entire  repeal 
of  the  charter  of  1697,  it  is  immaterial  to  determine,  since  as  a  sub- 
sequent law,  it  undoubtedly  abrogated  those  provisions  of  the  prior 
charter,  with  which  its  own  were  inconsistent. 

By  adverting  to  the  provisions  of  the  act,  the  bearing  and  impor- 
tance of  the  observations  we  have  made,  will  at  once  appear.  It 
creates  a  corporation  by  the  name  of  "the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of 
the  city  of  New- York  in  communion  of  the  Church  of  England  as 
by  law  established,"  and  declares  that  the  corporation  was  intended 
to  include  all  the  persons  that  its  name  describes.  (Mem.  p.  28.  §  1.) 

It  confirms  to  the  said  Rector  and  inhabitants  and  their  successors 
all  the  grants  previously  made  to  them,  to  be  held  and  enjoyed  by 
them  in  as  firm  and  ample  manner  in  the  law  as  if  the  said  Rector 
and  inhabitants  had  been  legally  incorporated.    (P.  29.) 

It  authorizes  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  in  communion  of  the 
church,  to  meet  annually)  for  the  election  of  the  prescribed  number 
of  wardens  and  vestrymen.  It  requires  that  the  wardens  and  vestry- 
men to  be  elected,  shall  be  communicants  of  the  church,  and  it  exacts 
a  similar  qualification  in  those  who  are  admitted  to  vote.  (^5,  p. 
30.) 

Restrictions  not  contained  in  the  prior  charter,  and  peculiar  to  this 
act : — finally,  far  from  creating  or  recognizing  a  parish  of  Trinity 
Church  and  limiting  the  right  of  voting  to  the  parishioners,  it  con- 
tains no  mention  of  a  parish  in  any  of  its  provisions,  neither  the  word 
"Parish"  nor  any  other  to  which,  by  any  construction,  a  similar 
meaning  may  be  attributed,  is  to  be  found  in  the  law. 

In  closing  their  observations  as  to  the  character  and  import  of  the 
act  of  1704,  observations  of  which  the  decisive  relevancy  will  here- 
after be  seen,  your  committee  do  not  hesitate  to  express  their  entire 
conviction,  that  from  the  time  of  the  passage  of  this  act,  until  the 
year  1784,  it  was  considered  by  all  the  parties  interested,  and  parti- 
cularly by  the  government  of  the  province,  and  the  corporation  itself, 
as  emphatically  the  law  by  which  the  corporate  rights  and  privileges 
of  Trinity  Church  were  created  and  defined,  and  that  during  all  this 


6  [Senati 

period,  it  was  by  the  provisions  of  this  law,  that  the  right  of  voting 
at  the  annual  elections  of  the  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  the  church 
was  wholly  governed.  Of  this  assertion  the  proofs  are  obvious  and 
conclusive. 

In  the  year  1705  a  grant  was  made  to  Trinity  church  by  the  Go- 
vernor of  the  Province  in  council,  but  in  the  name  of  Queen  Anne, 
of  that  well  known  tract  of  land,  within  the  bounds  of  the  city  of 
New-York,  which  constitutes  to  this  day  the  bulk  of  the  immense 
estate  that  the  church  possesses.  This  grant  is  not  only  made  "to 
the  rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  in  communion 
of  the  church  of  England,  as  by  law  established,  and  their  successors 
forever,"  the  exact  corporate  name  that  the  act  of  1704,  imposed,  but 
the  preamble  directly  refers  to  this  act,  as  the  sole  origin  of  their  cor- 
porate power  ;  in  other  words,  as  the  charter  from  which  the  legal 
capacity  of  the  rector,  and  inhabitants  to  accept  the  grant,  was  above 
derived.  (Queen  Anne's  Grant,  Mem.  p.  33.) 

2d.  It  was  admitted  by  the  counsel  for  the  remonstrants  on  the 
hearing  before  your  committee,  that  until  the  year  1784,  the  right  of 
voting  for  the  wardens  and  vestry  men  of  Trinity  church  was  limited  in 
its  actual  exercise  to  the  communicants  of  the  church  ;  and  a  well 
known  pamphlet  recently  published,  and  written  and  published  by  the 
late  Robert  Troup,  esq., with  aview  to  influence  the  actionof  the  coun- 
cil of  revision  on  the  bill,  (the  act  of  1814,)  then  pending  before  them, 
not  only  positively  affirms  the  same  fact,  but  states  that  one  of  the  ob- 
jects of  application  to  the  Legislature  in  1784,  was  to  extend  the  right 
of  voting  to  other  persons  than  the  communicants  of  the  church. 
(Remarks  on  Trinity  Church  Bill,  p.  7.  8.) 

This  limitation  on  the  right  of  voting  it  has  already  been  stated,  is 
only  to  be  found  in  the  act  of  1704. 

The  charter  of  1697  confers  the  right  on  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
parish  in  communion  of  the  church  of  England,  and  according  to  the 
well  known  doctrines  of  that  church  its  communion  embraces  all  its 
members  ;  in  other  words,  all  belong  to  the  communion  of  the 
church  who  have  been  baptized  or  confirmed  therein,  and  have  not 
explicitly  renounced  its  doctrines. 

3d.  The  name  given  to  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church,  (an  ap- 


No.  117.J 


7 


pellation  which  although  conscious  of  its  impropriety  for  the  sake  of 
brevity  we  ailopt,)  by  the  act  of  1704,  differs  from  its  corporate 
nt-ime  in  the  charter  of  1697. 

The  variance  on  comparison  may  appear  to  be  slight  and  purely 
verbal,  but  no  change  in  the  name  of  a  corporation  is  immaterial.  It 
IS  by  its  name  that  a  corporation  exists,  or  to  speak  more  properly,  it 
is  only  by  the  use  of  its  appropriate  name  that  it  can  manifest  its  ex- 
is  tence.  It  is  an  indisputable  fact,  that  from  the  year  1704,  to  the 
year  1788,  Trinity  church  in  all  its  corporate  acts  used  exclusively 
the  corporate  name  that  the  act  of  1704  imposed.  The  records  of 
the  church  demonstrate  the  fact,  and  the  preamble  to  an  act  of  the 
Legislature,  passed  in  1788,  to  which  we  shall  hereafter  refer,  con- 
tains a  distinct  admission  of  its  existence.  Having  stated  the  ori- 
ginal sources  from  which  the  corporate  rights  and  powers  of  Trinity 
church  were  derived,  we  have  next  to  consider  how  that  memorable 
revolution  by  which  the  colony  of  New- York  was  raised  to  the  dig- 
nity of  an  independent  State,  and  the  sovereignty  that  before  had 
been  vested  in  a  monarch  was  transferred  to  the  people,  effected  the 
existence  or  exercise  of  these  corporate  rights  and  powers.  In  reply 
to  this  inquiry,  your  committee  have  no  doubt  or  hesitation  in  stating 
that  the  necessary  effect  of  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  provisions  of  the  State  constitution  previously 
adopled,  was  to  render  the  exercise,  by  Trinity  church  and  its  corpo- 
ration, of  their  corporate  rights  and  privileges,  according  to  the  inten- 
tions of  those  by  whom  they  were  granted,  no  longer  practicable. 

Its  charter  whether  we  give  the  name  to  the  grant  of  1697,  or  to 
the  act  of  1704,  or  to  both  in  conjunction,  may  still  have  existed, 
but  it  existed  only  as  an  abstraction. 

All  the  powers  and  privileges  that  it  conferred  were  suspended  and 
dormant,  and  in  that  state  but  for  the  interposition  of  the  Legislature 
must  forever  have  remained.  It  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  it  was  an 
essential  condition  of  the  original  charters,  that  the  rector  and  inhabi- 
tants whom  they  incorporated  should  remain  in  the  communion  of 
the  church  of  England  as  established  and  governed  by  the  laws  of 
England. 

Their  voluntary  departure  previous  to  the  revolution  from  that 


8  [Senate 

communion  would  have  operated  as  an  absolute  forfeiture  of  their 
corporate  powers. 

But  from  the  time  that  the  city  of  New-Ycrk  was  rescued  from 
foreign  domination,  the  connexion  between  Trinity  church  and  its 
members  and  the  church  of  England,  and  their  dependence  upon  that 
church  and  upon  the  laws  of  England,  were  wholly  dissolved — nor 
without  a  violation  of  the  principles  of  our  Constitution,  could  the 
communion  thus  interrupted  and  broken  ever  be  restored. 

The  emancipated  city  contained  no  rector  and  inhabitants  in  com- 
munion of  the  church  of  England,  as  by  law  established.  Hence, 
there  were  no  longer  any  persons  in  being  by  whom  the  corporate 
powers  of  Trinity  church,  according  to  the  terms  of  its  corporation 
could  be  exercised. 

The  charter  still  existed  as  an  historical  document,  but  was  no 
longer  a  living  reality.  The  ancient  words  remained,  but  they  had 
lost  their  significance  and  power.  On  paper  there  was  still  a  corpo- 
ration— in  fact,  not  a  single  corporator.  Hence,  if  the  charter  was 
to  be  revived  at  all  ;  if  Trinity  church  was  to  be  enabled  as  a  corpo- 
ration to  retain  the  possession  and  government  of  the  valuable  pro- 
perty it  had  previously  acquired,  an  act  of  the  Legislature  designat- 
ing the  persons  who  should  be  entitled  to  act  as  corporators,  and  de- 
fining the  mode  of  their  action  was  indispensable  to  be  passed  ;  and 
if  the  act  of  the  Legislature  was  thus  necessary  to  reanimate  a  life- 
less corporation,  the  same  Legislature  had  an  undoubted  right  to  pro- 
scribe the  conditions  on  which  the  existence  that  it  restored  should  in 
future  be  held.  These  remarks  are  introductory  to  the  law  to  which 
the  attention  of  the  Senate  will  next  be  directed,  the  act  passed  by 
the  Legislature  on  the  17th  April,  1784,  entitled  "  an  act  tor  making 
such  alterations  in  the  charter  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church  as 
to  render  it  more  conformable  to  the  Constitution  of  the  State," 
(Act  of  1784,  Mem.  p.  37,)  a  title  that  expresses  very  accurately  the 
principal  object  of  the  law. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  advert  specially  to  those  provisions  of  this  act 
that  were  designed  lo  produce  the  desired  conformity  between  the 
charter  of  the  church  and  the  Constitution  of  the  State,  except  to 
remark,  that  those  parts  of  the  charter  that  are  directly  repealed  are 


No.  117.]  9 

only  to  be  found  in  the  act  of  1704,  not  in  the  grant  of  1697.  Thus 
incidentally  affording  another  decisive  proof  that  the  act  of  the  As- 
sembly and  710^  the  grant,  had  been  followed  and  obeyed,  as  the  fun- 
damental law,  from  which  the  powers  of  the  corporation  were  de- 
rived and  by  which  their  exercise  was  governed,  (Compare  preamble 
^  1,  of  the  Act.  Mem.  p.  38,  with  §  3,  of  the  Act  of  1704,  p.  29, 
30.) 

It  is  the  third  section  ot  the  act  of  1784  that  defines  the  qualifica- 
tions of  the  persons  who  were  to  be  instituted  as  members  of  the 
corporation,  and  consequently  entitled  to  vote  as  in  the  election  of 
wardens  and  vestry  men,  in  place  of  those  that  the  original  charter 
describe.  That  section  is  in  the  words  following  :  "  Be  it  further 
enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that  all  persons  professing  them- 
selves members  of  the  episcopal  church  who  shall  hold,  occupy  or 
enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in  the  said  church,  and  shall  regularly  pay  to  the 
support  of  the  said  church,  and  such  others  as  shall  in  the  said  church 
partake  of  the  holy  sacrament^^of  the  Lord's  supper,  at  least  once  in 
every  year,  being  inhabitants  of  the  city  and  county  of  New-York, 
shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  rights,  privileges,  benefits,  and  emoluments, 
which  in  and  by  the  said  charter  and  law  first  above  mentioned,  are 
designed  to  be  secure  1  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York,  in 
communion  of  the  church  of  England." 

It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  these  provisions  vary  materially  from  those 
of  the  former  charter  of  the  church,  since'they  extend  the  right  of  voting 
to  a  class  of  persons,  namely  pew  holders,  not  being  communicants, 
that  by  the  terms  of  the  act  1704,  and-  by  the  uniform  practice  under 
that  law,  had  been  wholly  excluded,  and  upon  this  ground  it  has  been 
asserted  that  this  legislative  proceeding  in  1784  is  liable  precisely  to 
the  same  objections  that  have  been  urged  against  that  in  1814,  and 
that  in  both  cases  the  objections  are  subject  to  the  same  reply. 

If  the  act  of  1814,  it  has  been  said,  altered  the  vested  rights  of 
those  who  as  corporators  were  entitled  to  vote  under  the  act  of  1784, 
the  act  of  1784  made  a  similar  alteration  in  the  rights  of  the  corpo- 
rators, under  the  original  charter ;  and  if  for  this  reason  the  second  law 
is  to  ba  deemed  unconstitutional  and  void,  the  first  ought  to  be  held 
invalid,  on  the  same  ground,  and  if  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1784, 

[Senate,  No.  117.]  2 


10  I  Senate 

although  invalid  in  their  origin,  have  been  rendered  obligatory  by  the 
lapse  of  time,  and  the  acquiescence,  and  implied  consent  of  those 
•whose  rights  they  impaired — those  of  the  act  of  1814,  however  un- 
constitutional and  unjust,  when  passed,  have  been  placed  by  the  same 
causes  beyond  the  reach  of  legislative  power  and  judicial  action,  and 
finally  that  if  the  act  of  1814  ought  to  be  repealed,  the  repeal  should 
in  justice  be  extended  to  that  of  1784,  thus  restoring  the  original 
charter  and  the  rights  of  those  entitled  under  it,  to  all  their  pristine 
integrity. 

But  your  committee  are  unable  to  admit  the  force  or  even  the  pro- 
priety of  these  observations.  The  supposition  on  which  they  proceed 
is  w-holly  groundless,  and  the  parallel  that  they  assume  to  exist,  is 
imaginary. 

There  was  nothing  at  all  questionable  in  the  proceeding  of  the  Le- 
gislature in  1784.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  to  the  action  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  that  time,  that  Trinity  Church  owes  the  preservation  of  its 
charter  and  of  its  estates. 

For  the  reasons  that  have  already  been  given,  and  for  the  additional 
reason  that  in  1784,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  that  for- 
bids the  passage  of  any  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  a  contract 
was  not  in  force,  the  Legislature  at  that  time  had  an  absolute  right 
to  make  any  regulations  in  relation  to  the  corporate  powers  and 
privileges  of  Trinity  Church,  and  its  members  that  they  might  deem 
it  expedient  to  adopt.  Trinity  Church  had  no  subsisting  charter 
having  the  obligation  of  a  contract,  that  the  Legislature  could  violate 
or  impair  ;  and  if  such  a  charter  had  existed,  there  was  no  constitu- 
tional law,  that  forbade  the  Legislature  to  alter  or  to  repeal  it  in  the 
exercise  of  its  own  discretion.  On  the  other  hand,  in  1814,  the 
charter  of  Trinity  Church  as  revised  and  modified  by  the  acts  of 
1784  and  1788  was  in  actual  force,  and  the  proper  evidence  of  a  con- 
tract then  subsisting  between  the  corporation  and  the  people  of  the 
State,  and  the  Legislature  consequently,  by  force  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  had  lost  entirely  its  jurisdiction  over  the  sub- 
ject, and  was  in  truth  inhibited  from  passing  any  law  changing  in 
any  degree  the  provisions  of  the  charter,  without  the  consent  of  all 
■whose  rights  or  interests  were  liable  to  be  affected  by  the  alteration. 
Hence  the  act  of  1784,  although  changing  the  rights  of  the  cor- 


No.  117.J  11 

porators,  was  certainly  valid  ;  while  that  of  1814,  if  it  effected  a  simi- 
lar change,  was  certainly  void.  To  repeal  the  latter,  may  he  a  proper 
and  most  legitimate  exercise  of  legislative  power,  an  act  of  plain  and 
necessary  justice,  while  to  repeal  the  former,  were  such  a  repeal  com- 
petent to  the  Legislature,  would  be  an  act  of  undisguised  oppression 
and  injustice. 

To  repeal  the  act  of  1784,  could  the  repeal  be  sustained  in  law, 
would  be  to  revoke  the  charter  of  Trinity  Church,  and  by  a  necessary 
consequence  to  confiscate  its  property,  as  there  would  no  longer  be 
any  corporalors;  there  would  be  none  to  contest  the  right  of  the 
State  to  seize  a  vacant  possession. 

The  act  to  which  we  shall  next  refer,  was  passed  by  the  Legisla- 
ture on  the  10th  of  March,  1788,  and  will  not  long  detain  us.  The 
Legislature  in  1784,  omitted  to  change  the  corporate  name  of  Trinity 
Church,  and  hence  the  corporation  continued  to  use  the  name  by 
which  it  was  created  in  the  act  of  1704  :  "  The  Rector  and  inhabi- 
tants of  the  city  of  New-York  in  communion  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land as  by  law  established."  A  change  of  the  name  that  the  altered 
relations  of  the  corporators  rendered  no  longer  applicable,  was  mani- 
festly proper,  and  this  necessary  change  the  act  of  ]788  effected,  by 
authorizing  the  corporation  to  take  and  use  the  name  of  the 
Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  in  communion  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of  New- York. 

There  was  no  further  action  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  in  relation  to  Trinity  Church,  until  the  year  1813,  when  the 
act  of  which  the  repeal  is  now  recommended,  was  introduced  into  the 
Senate,  and  having  in  the  same  year  been  passed  in  that  body,  and 
the  House  of  Assembly,  finally  became  a  law  on  the  25th  ot  January, 
1814,  by  the  omission  of  the  council  of  revision  to  return  it  with 
objections  to  the  body  in  which  it  originated,  within  the  period  pre 
scribed  by  the  constitution.  The  circumstances  attending  the  passage 
of  this  law,  the  mode  of  its  introduction  into  the  Senate,  its  reference 
in  the  Assembly  to  the  Attorney-General,  the  opinion  thereon  of  that 
ofi&cer,  the  objections  reported  to  the  council  of  revision  against  its 
passage,  and  the  equal  division  of  that  body  on  that  question,  are 
fully  and  truly  set  forth  in  the  memorial  and  accompanying  documents 
that  have  been  referred  to  your  committee. 


12 


[Senate 


Neither  on  these  circumstances  nor  on  the  actual  provisions  of  the 
law,  is  it  necessary  that  your  committee  should  now  dwell,  since  they 
intend  to  advert  to  all  of  them  that  they  deem  material  in  the  course 
of  the  observations  they  now  propose  to  submit. 

Having  stated  the  facts,  and  referred  to  the  evidence  on  which  the 
judgment  of  the  Legislature  must  be  founded,  your  committee  will 
proceed  to  state  the  grounds  on  which  they  recommend  the  entire 
repeal  of  the  act  of  1814. 

1.  Because  the  act  of  1814,  was  founded  on  the  erroneous  suppo- 
sition that  the  right  of  voting  for  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity 
Church  previous  to  the  revolution,  and  until  the  act  of  1784,  was 
wholly  governed  by  the  provisions  of  the  charter  of  1697,  and  hence 
the  consent  of  the  Legislature  to  the  passage  of  the  law,  was  induced 
by  a  misapprehension  of  material  facts. 

2.  Because  the  construction  given  by  the  Legislature  to  the  pre- 
vious acts  of  1784,  and  1788,  was  in  its  nature  an  exercise  of  judi- 
cial power  involving  private  rights  which  should  have  been  left  to 
the  courts,  instead  of  being  assumed  by  the  Legislature. 

3.  Because  the  terms  of  the  act  of  1814,  by  their  plain  and  neces- 
sary construction,  dispense  with  those  qualifications  on  the  part  of 
the  corporators  thar  by  the  founders  of  the  church,  by  those  from 
whom  its  1  roperty  was  derived,  and  by  the  Legislature  in  1784,  and 
1788,  was  deemed  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the  character  and 
purity  of  Trinity  Church,  as  a  religious  corporation,  and  may  change 
the  entire  Ic  cation  and  character  of  the  corporators. 

1.  In  stating  that  the  consent  of  the  Legislature  to  the  act  of  1814, 
was  induced  by  a  misapprehension  of  material  facts,  your  committee 
are  far  from  supposing  that  the  distinguished  men  to  whose  exerti.  ns 
and  influence  the  passage  of  that  law  is  doubtless  to  be  ascribed,  enter- 
tained the  d.  sign,  or  wish,  to  deceive  and  mislead  the  Legislature.  Of 
such  a  design  or  wish  they  were  wholly  incapable.  But  that  the  Le- 
gislature in  1813  was  in  fact  misled,  that  bcth  the  fact  and  the  law 
of  the  case  were  misunderstood,  and  that  material  facts  that  ought  to 
tave  been  considered,  were  altogether  overlooked  by  the  Legislature, 
your  committee  are  constrained  to  believe  ;  nor  can  they  doubt  that 
the  evidence  to  which  they  mean  to  refer  will  produce  a  similar  con- 
viction on  the  mind  of  this  Senate. 


No.  117.] 


13 


It  was  represented  to  the  Legislature;  that  previous  to  the  act  of 
1784,  the  charter  of  1697  was  the  subsisting  charter  of  Trinity 
Church,  and  that  by  its  provisions,  until  then,  the  right  of  voting  in 
the  election  of  wardens  and  vestrymen,  have  been  wholly  governed, 
and  the  attention  of  the  Legislature,  if  not  diverted  from,  was  not 
called  to  the  fact,  that  the  provisions  in  the  original  charter  in  rela- 
tion to  the  right  of  voting  had  been  wholly  superseded,  by  the  incon- 
sistent provision  of  the  act  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1704,  and 
that  this  law  from  the  time  of  its  passage  had  been  followed  and 
obeyed,  by  Trinity  Church,  as  the  fundamental  law  of  its  creation 
and  government.  -  • 

The  petition  of  Trinity  Church  for  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814, 
of  which  a  transcript  is  given  in  the  .emonstrance  referred  to  your 
committee  commences  in  these  words,  "That  so  long  ago  as  in  the 
year  one  thousand  six  hundred  and  ninety-seven  your  petitioners 
were  incorporated  by  letters  patent  under  the  great  seal  of  the  colo- 
ny of  New-York,  and  have  ever  since  continued  to  be  a  body  politic  and 
corporate  by  virtue  of  the  said  charter  — language  evidently  implying 
that  it  was  under  the  charter  alone  that  the  corporate  rights  of 
Trinity  Church  were  held  and  existed  ;  an  assertion  not  intentionally^ 
but  in  fact  untrue;  if  the  charter  of  1697  were  either  void  from  ille- 
gality when  granted  or  if  its  provisions  were  superseded  by  those  of 
the  subsequent  act  of  the  General  Assembly,  as  they  assuredly  were, 
if  this  act  had  any  validity  at  all.  The  next  paragraph  of  the  peti- 
tion is  in  these  words,  That  at  the  time  of  granting  the  same  (the 
letters  patent  of  1697,)  it  was  contemplated  that  Trinity  Church 
should  be  the  sole  and  only  parish  church  in  the  said  city." 

It  is  quite  immaterial  what  was  contemplated  by  the  Governor  of 
the  colony  when  he  granted  the  charter,  if  no  similar  views  were  en- 
tertained by  the  general  assembly  when  they  passed  the  act  of  1704 
and  certainly  this  act  affords  not  the  slightest  proof,  that  it  was  con- 
templated or  supposed  by  the  assembly,  that  Trinity  church  was  to 
remain  forever  "  the  sole  and  only  parish  church  in  the  city. 

The  statement  that  Trinity  church  was  intended  to  be  the  "  sole 
parish  church,"  was  doubtless  made  as  an  argument  for  the  passage 
of  the  law  that  was  prayed  for,  but  the  futility  of  such  an  argument 


14  [Senate 

would  at  once  have  been  demonstrated  by  a  reference  to  the  act  of 
1704. 

We  add  that  this  petition  not  only  contains  no  reference  to  the 
provisions  of  the  act  of  1704,  but  has  not  even  an  allusion  to  its 
existence. 

The  reader  of  this  petition  drawing  his  only  knowledge  of  the  facts 
from  the  representations  it  contains,  could  never  have  inferred  that 
such  an  act  as  that  of  1704,  had  ever  been  passed  ;  and  still  less 
would  he  have  suspected,  that  from  the  time  of  the  passage  of  this  act, 
until  some  years  after  the  revolution,  Trinity  church  has  been  known 
in  law,  both  in  the  grants  it  received,  and  in  its  own  corporate  acts, 
by  no  other  name  than  that  which  this  act  imposed.  And  that  until 
the  year  1784,  the  electors  for  its  wardens  and  vestrymen,  had  been 
governed  by  no  other  rule  than  that  which  this  act  prescribes. 

It  is  evident  from  the  report  made  by  the  Attorney-General  to  the 
Assembly,  that  his  opinion  that  the  proposed  law  to  alter  the  name  of 
Trinity  church,  would  not  defeat  or  vary  any  existing  vested  rights, 
was  founded  solely  on  the  charter  of  1697,  and  on  the  acts  of  1784 
and  1788  ;  and  the  resolution  of  the  Assembly  requesting  his  opinion, 
as  clearly  shows  that  these  were  the  only  documents  that  he  was 
requested  to  consider. 

The  acts  of  1784  and  '88  were  the  only  acts  that  altered  the  char- 
ter. That  of  the  general  assembly  in  1704  did  not  profess  to  alter 
an  existing  charter,  but  was  an  independent  and  original  grant. — A 
new  and  complete  charter,  having  no  reference  to  the  provisions  of 
the  former,  and  taking  no  notice  of  its  existence — from  the  time  of 
its  passage  it  was  in  itself  emphatically  the  charter  of  the  church. 

In  the  year  1813  two  pamphlets  were  written  and  published  with 
an  avowed  design  to  influence  the  action  of  the  Legislature,  and  of 
the  council  of  revision,  in  favor  of  the  bill  for  which  Trinity  Church 
had  petitioned.  The  earliest  of  these  pamphlets,  that  entitled  "  Tri- 
nity church  defended,"  is  attributed  to  the  late  Bishop  Hobart,  at  that 
time  the  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  this  Slate. 
And  the  second,  entitled  "  Remarks  on  Trinity  church  bill,"  was 
published  by  the  late  Robert  Troup,  Esq.,  then  one  of  the  wardens 
or  vestrymen  of  that  church,  in  his  own  name.   It  will  not  be  denied 


No.  117.]  15 

that  these  pamphlets,  (which  have  been  reprinted  and  distributed 
among  the  members  of  the  Legislature  during  its  present  session) 
from  the  character  and  position  of  the  authors,  may  be  appealed  to 
with  entire  confidence,  as  expressing  the  views  of  the  applicants  for 
the  bill  to  which  they  relate,  and  as  evidence  of  the  representations 
then  made,  and  the  arguments  then  used  in  order  to  obtain  its  pas- 
sage. 

In  relation  to  the  act  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1704,  the  true, 
and  probably  only  valid  charter  of  Trinity  Church,  the  first  of  these 
pamphlets  observes  a  silence  as  absolute  as  that  of  the  petition  to 
which  we  have  adverted — the  superseded  letters  patent  of  1697  being 
alone  the  charter,  that  it  undertakes  to  explain  and  defend. 

The  second  pamphlet  preserves  in  its  text,  and  in  all  its  reasoning, 
the  same  silence.  And  the  only  allusion  to  the  act  of  1704  is  to  be 
found  in  a  note,  which,  although  brief,  is  so  inaccurate  that  instead  of 
enlightening  the  council  of  revision  to  influence  whose  decision  the 
pamphlet  was  written,  as  to  the  true  character  and  provisions  of  the 
act  of  1784,  it  was  almost  certain  to  mislead  them  by  inducing  the 
erroneous  belief  that  the  two  charters  were  in  their  substance  identi- 
cal, and  that  the  act  of  the  Assembly  was  only  intended  to  confirm 
by  enacting  the  letters  patent  of  the  Governor. 

This  note  is  at  the  bottom  of  page  21,  and  is  as  follows  : — 
"  See  law  (of  1704,)  in  vol.  1,  p.  60,  of  Van  Schaack's  edition  of 
the  colony  laws  which  enacts  the  charter  almost  in  totidem  verbis?'' 

The  law  can  hardly  be  said  to  enact  a  charter  that  it  never  men- 
tions, nor  are  the  provisions  of  the  two  instruments  identical  in  their 
substance  or  language.  The  name  of  the  corporation  is  different ;  a 
different  person  is  appointed  rector,  the  mode  of  his  induction  is  dif- 
ferent, the  qualifications  of  the  voters  are  different,  and  numerous  pro- 
visions found  in  the  letters  patent  are  wholly  omitted  in  the  law — 
Besides  the  act  of  1704  on  its  face  shows,  that  the  then  general  assem- 
bly did  not  then  recognize  any  previous  existing  charter ;  for  after 
reciting  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  of  the  commu- 
nion of  the  church  of  England,  as  by  law  established,  had  acquired 
certain  property,  and  erected  a  certain  church,  called  Trinity  church, 


16 


[Senati 


it  incorporates  "  The  rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York 
in  communion  of  the  church  of  England  as  by  law  established  ;"  and 
then  authorizes  them  to  exercise  such  corporate  rights,  and  hold  the 
said  property,  "  as  if  the  said  rector  and  inhabitants  had  been  legally 
incorporated,  and  made  capable  in  the  law,  to  take,  receive,  purchase, 
have,  hold  and  use,  and  enjoy  the  same  at  and  before  the  purchasing 
taking,  receiving,''^  &c.,  which  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  idea, 
that  the  charter  of  1697  was  then  considered  valid  and  in  force.  * 

Your  committee  feel  that  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  dwell  longer 
on  the  evidence.  The  proof  is  complete  and  irresistible  that  the  let- 
ters patent  of  1697  were  represented  to  the  Legislature  as  the  char- 
ter of  Trinity  church  before  the  revolution,  and  as  the  only  docu-' 
ment  of  that  period  necessary  or  proper  to  be  consulted  in  order  to 
guide  the  Legislature  to  a  correct  decision,  and  that  the  act  of  1704, 
a  knowledge  of  the  provisions  of  which  would  have  manifested  the 
error,  was  virtually  suppressed.  It  remains  then  only  to  show  that 
the  misapprehension  thus  produced  was  material  ;  and  if  we  mistake 
not  the  materiality  will  appear  to  be  such  that  had  the  character,  the 
provisions,  and  the  legal  effect  of  the  act  of  1704,  and  its  adoption 
by  Trinity  church  been  fully  known  and  considered,  it  is  not  at  all 
probable  that  the  law  of  1814  would  have  been  passed  ;  since  it 
would  then  have  been  manifest  that  the  arguments  on  which  the  ad- 
vocates for  the  passage  of  the  law  seemed  chiefly  to  rely  were  wholly 
inapplicable. 

It  is  quite  certain  that  the  Legislature  of  1813  did  not  mean  by  the 
passage  of  the  bill  before  them  to  extend  or  alter  the  corporate 
powers  of  Trinity  church,  nor  to  affect  or  vary  in  any  degree  the 
rights  of  the  corporators.  They  did  not  intend  to  introduce  a  new 
rule  as  to  the  qualifications  of  the  corporators,  so  as  to  exclude  any 
persons  or  class  of  persons  from  voting  in  the  elections  of  wardens 
and  vestry  men  of  the  church,  who  under  the  provisions  of  the  act 
of  1784,  were  entitled  to  the  privilege. 

The  reference  made  by  the  Assembly  to  the  Attorney-General,  con- 
clusively shows  that  that  body  would  never  have  consented  to  the 
passage  of  the  law,  had  they  believed  that  it  would  operate  to  defeat 
or  vary  any  existing  vested  rights.  But  the  necessary  effect  of  the 
law  was  not  merely  to  vary  but  to  set  aside  and  defeat  existing  vested 


No.  117. j  17 

rif^hts,  if  it  operated  to  exclude  even  a  single  individual  from  the  cor- 
poration of  Trinity  church,  who  according  to  a  just  interpretation  of 
the  law  of  1784,  was  entitled  to  the  name  and  privileges  of  a  corpo- 
rator. 

Hence  in  order  to  obtain  the  passage  of  the  law  it  was  necessary  to 
satisfy  the  mind  of  the  Legislature  that  the  qualifications  of  voters  as 
defined  by  the  second  section  of  the  bill,  (the  act  of  1S14,)  although 
not  the  same  in  terms  were  identical  in  their  meaning  and  practical 
construction  with  the  qualifications  of  corporators  as  defined  by  the 
third  section  of  the  act  of  1784.  In  other  words,  that  the  law  they 
were  required  to  pass  only  declared  in  express  words  the  same  mean- 
ing that  the  act  of  1784  conveyed  by  a  necessary  implication. 

The  second  section  of  the  act  of  1814  prohibits  any  person  from 
voting  at  any  election  for  the  church  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  the 
corporation  who  shall  not  have  been  for  the  space  of  one  year  pre- 
ceding the  election  a  member  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity 
church  or  of  one  of  its  chapels.  And  admitting  that  the  qualifica- 
tions of  the  voters  under  both  laws  are  in  all  other  respects  the  same, 
it  is  quite  certain  that  this  limitation  of  the  right  of  voting  to  "  mem- 
bers of  the  congregation  "  is  not  found  in  the  act  of  1784.  The  term 
congregation  has  a  definite  meaning.  It  denotes  all  the  persons  who 
usually  assemble  for  public  worship  in  the  same  church,  and  hence 
the  phrases  "  member  of  a  congregation  "  and  "  a  regular  attendant 
on  public  worship  in  the  church  to  which  the  congregation  belongs," 
are  equivalent  in  meaning  ;  but  it  is  impossible  to  read  the  third  sec- 
tion of  the  act  of  1784,  and  not  confess  that  no  such  condition  as 
that  of  a  regular  or  of  any  attendance  on  the  service  of  the  church  is 
there  recognized. 

By  the  terms  of  this  section  every  pew  holder,  and  every  person 
who  without  being  a  pew  holder,  had  partaken  in  the  church  within 
the  year,  of  the  holy  sacrament,  is  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  cf  a 
corporator  ;  and  looking  merely  to  the  language  employed,  we  do 
not  hesitate  to  say  that  no  court  or  tribunal  could  possibly  reject  the 
vote  of  a  person  thus  entitled,  on  the  ground  that  lie  had  not  by  ti$ 
attendance  on  the  services  of  the  church  during  the  preceding  year 
rendered  himself  a  member  of  the  congregation.  The  difficulty  of 
giving  such  a  construction  to  the  law  of  1784  was  very  sensibly  felt 

[Senate,  No.  117.]  3  (u.  n.) 


18  [Senate 

by  the  advocates  of  the  law  of  1814,  and  it  is  the  removal  of  this 
difficulty  that  the  elaborate  arguments  of  the  -writers  of  the  pamph- 
lets to  which  we  have  referred,  were  chiefly  directed. 

The  substance  of  the  argument  may  be  given  in  a  few  words.  It 
was  assumed  that  the  Legislature  had  a  perfect  right  to  supply  the 
defective  language  of  the  act  of  1784,  by  a  reference  to  the  terms  of 
the  original  charter  of  the  church. 

It  was  contended  that  the  original  charter  of  the  church  the  letters 
patent  of  1697,  in  effect  required,  as  a  necessary  qualification  of  the 
corporators  entitled  to  vote,  the  same  attendance  in  Trinity  church  on 
the  services  of  the  church  that  the  words  "  members  of  the  congre- 
gation "  inserted  in  the  bill  of  1814  would  be  construed  to  imply. 
The  charter  made  Trinity  church  the  parish  church  of  the  city,  and 
limited  the  right  of  voting  to  the  inhabitants  not  of  the  city,  but 
of  the  parish.  The  word  "  parish  "  it  was  said,  imports  a  religious 
congregation  or  society,  or  if  to  be  understood  in  a  territorial  sense, 
means  that  "  compass  of  ground  in  the  neighborhood  of  a  church  which 
is  occupied  by  the  people  worshipping  in  that  church.^' 

That  as  a  parishioner,  is  therefore  a  stated  worshipper,  the  words 
*'  members  of  the  congregation  "  in  the  bill  of  which  the  passage  was 
desired,  expressed  no  more  than  the  words  "  inhabitants  of  the 
parish"  in  the  original  charter  necessarily  implied.*  On  the  accura- 
cy or  difficulty  of  this  reasoning  your  committee  neither  mean  nor 
wish  to  express  an  opinion. 

Whether  the  interpretation  thus  given  to  the  peculiar  terms  of  the 
charter  of  1697  was  reasonable  and  just,  or  strained  and  fanciful  is  a 
question  that  it  is  quite  unnecessary  to  consider.  It  is  sufficient  to 
say,  that  had  it  been  known  to  the  Legislature  of  1813,  that  prior  lo 
the  act  of  1784  the  colonial  act  of  1704,  which  neither  created  a 
"parish"  nor  limited  the  right  of  voting  to  the  "inhabitants  of  the 


•  This  definition  as  given  in  the  remarks  on  Trinity  church  Bill,  p.  18.  And  the  inge- 
nious author  of  a  pamphlet,  published  in  Albany, says  "This  ingredient  of  being  mem- 
bers of  the  congregation  is  obviously  but  a  repetition  in  substance  of  the  original  qualifi- 
cation in  the  charter  of  1697,  that  they  should  be  "  inhabitants  of  the  said  parish  "  in 
«•  communion  as  aforesaid,"  (Review  of  the  grounds,  &c.,  p.  12;)  and  this  obvious  iden- 
tity of  the  provisions  is  the  only  {ground  on  which  he  justifies  the  introduction  of  the  first 
in  the  law  of  1814. 


No.  117.  J  19 

parish,"  was  the  true  charter  of  Trinity  church,  by  the  provisions  o^ 
■which  all  its  proceedings  and  elections  had  been  governed,  they  could 
not  have  failed  to  see  that  the  arguments  founded  on  the  exploded 
language  of  a  disregarded  and  superseded  charter,  were  wholly  irre- 
levant. They  would  then  have  known  that  to  introduce  the  clause 
"  members  of  the  congregation,"  as  a  new  qualification  of  the 
corporators,  was  to  alter  essentially  the  existing  charter,  as  modified 
by  previous  legislation  ;  and  by  necessary  consequence  was  to  vary 
or  defeat  the  existing  rights  of  some  of  the  corporators,  and  we  are 
warranted  to  say  that  with  this  knowledge  they  would  have  rejected 
the  bill,  that  under  false  impressions  and  by  fallacious  reasoning  they 
were  induced  to  sanction. 

It  has  been  said,  and  with  great  apparent  confidence,  that  the  ac^ 
of  1704,  the  true  charter  of  Trinity  church  was  very  properly  with- 
drawn from  the  notice  and  rejected  from  the  consideration  of  the 
Legislature  in  1813,  because  by  the  action  of  the  Legislature  in  1784 
the  act  of  the  Colonial  Assembly  had  been  wholly  repealed. 

Were  this  assertion  true,  it  would  be  difficult  to  perceive  its  appli- 
cation, since  its  truth  would  not  at  all  weaken  or  vary  the  force  of  the 
considcations  that  have  already  been  urged.  Admitting  that  the  act  of 
1704  was  repealed  in  1784,  the  certain  truth  remains,  that  until  it 
was  so  repealed,  it  was  the  charter  of  Trinity  Church — the  charter 
by  which  the  rights  of  the  corporators,  and  the  qualifications  of  the 
voters  were  regulated  and  defined,  fnd  that  consequently  it  was  the 
only  document  to  which,  with  any  propriety,  a  reference  could  be 
made,  as  an  index  to  the  intentions  of  the  Legislature  in  1784,  to  aid 
the  interpretation  of  their  acts. 

It  so  happens,  however,  that  the  assertion  that  the  colonial  act 
was  repealed,  is  just  as  erroneous,  as  the  inference  drawn  from  it,  on 
the  supposition  of  its  truth,  is  plainly  illogical.  The  act  of  1704  was 
notwholly  repealed  in  1784,  nor  has  it  since  been  repealed.  It  is  now 
at  this  day  the  charter  of  Trinity  Church,  and  were  it  not  so,  it  is  at 
least  doubtful  whether  that  church  would  have  any  charter  at  all.* 

•  It  is  true  that  the  act  of  1784  recognizes  the  existence  of  the  charter  of  1697,  but  there 
are  no  words  that  give  to  it  any  yaliility  that  it  did  not  before  possess.  If  it  was  a  nullity 
when  granted,  and  it  was  certainly  so  regarded  by  the  colonial  assembly,  or  if  it  were 
superseded  and  abrogated,  by  the  subsequent  act  of  the  Assembly,  express  words  were 
palpably  necessary  to  create  or  restore  its  validity.  The  mere  repeal  of  the  colonial  net 
would  not  have  that  effect. 


20 


f  Senate 


It  is  true  that  the  preamble  to  the  act  of  1788,  altering  the  corpo- 
rate name  of  Trinity  Church,  states  that  the  act  of  1704  had  been  re- 
pealed ;  but  it  will  not  be  supposed  or  pretended  that  a  false  recital 
can  have  the  effect  of  an  actual  repeal. 

If  the  constitutional  law  of  Trinity  Church  was  repealed  at  all,  it  is 
in  the  act  of  1784,  to  which  that  of  1788  refers,  that  the  repealing 
clause  must  be  found.    It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  such  a  clause  is  ap- 
parently founri  in  the  act  of  1784.    The  6th  section  of  tha'  law  enu- 
merates the  colonial  act  of  1704  in  the  list  of  those  that  it  expressly 
repeals,  and  this  repeal,  looking  merely  at  the  words  there  used  is  ab- 
solute and  total  ;  butthe  preamble  to  this  section  clearly  explains  the 
motives  of  the  Legislature  in  the  contemplated  repeal.     It  declares 
that  its  sole  object  was  to  carry  into  full  effect  those  parts  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  State,  "  which  declares  that  the  free  exercise  and  en- 
joyment of  religious  profession  and  worship,  without  discrimina- 
tion or  preference  shall  forever  hereafter  be  allowed  within  this  State 
to  all  mankind,  and  that  all  acts  of  the  Legislature  of  this  State  while  a 
colony,  and  all  parts  thereof  which  may  be  construed  to  establish  or 
maintain  any  particular  denomination  of  christians  or  their  ministers 
be  abrogated  and  rejected  as  repugnant  to  the  said  constitution."  And 
the  repealing  clause  itself,  concludes,  with  declaring  that  the  acts  it 
had  enumerated  were  repealed,  "  as  inconsistent  with,  and  repugnant 
to  the  constitution  of  the  State."    It  is  quite  certain  that  most  of  the 
provisions  in  the  act  of  1704,  are  in  no  sense  inconsistent  with  or  re- 
pugnant to  the  former  constitution  of  the  State.    They  a.e  no  more 
so  than  the  corresponding  provisions  in  the  charter  of  1697  ;  and  if 
upon  such  a  ground,  a  total  repeal  of  the  act  had  been  judged  neces- 
sary, the  repeal,  for  the  same  reason,  must  have  been  extended  to  the 
the  charter  of  1697.    Hence  a  court  of  justice,  founding  its  opinion 
only  upon  the  6th  section  of  the  law  and  its  preamble,  might  rea- 
sonably arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  repeal  of  the  colonial  act,  al- 
though entire  and  absolute  in  its  terms,  was  limited  in  its  intention, 
and  was  justly  to  be  carried  no  farther  than  was  necessary  to  carry 
into  full  effect,  the  object  that  the  Legislature  proposed  to  accom- 
plish.    Admitting  however,  that  judges  would  feel  some  embarrass- 
ment, in  adopting  this  conclusion  upon  the  premises  stated,  there 
is  another  section  of  the  law,  that  by  removing  all  doubt  or  obscuri- 
ty from  the  intentions  of  the  Legislature,  would  at  once  relieve  them 


No.  U7.1  21 

from  the  difficulty.  The  preamble  to  the  act  of  1784,  refers  not  on- 
ly to  the  charter  of  1697,  but  by  its  title  and  date,  to  the  colonial 
act  of  1704,  and  also  in  a  subsequent  clause,  to  another  colonial  act 
passed  in  1693  ;  and  the  first  section  after  directly  repealing  so  much 
of  the  charter  and  of  the  law  first  above  particularly  mentioned,  as  re- 
lates to  the  induction  of  the  rector  by  the  governor,  and  to  the  power 
and  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  London  in  and  over  the  said  corpora- 
tion, concludes  with  these  words  :  "  And  that  nothing  in  this  law 
shall  be  in  any  wise  construed  to  annul,  injure,  repeal  or  make  void 
the  said  charter,  or  the  said  law  first  above  particularly  mentioned, 
where  the  same  are  not  inconsistent  M'ith  the  constitution  of  this 
state."  Language  so  explicit  extinguishes  doubt,  and  puts  an  end 
to  construction.  The  words  used  admit  but  one  interpretation.  Un- 
less it  can  be  shown  that  the  sixth  section  is  not  a  part  of  the  law, 
they  must  have  the  same  effect,  as  if  it  had  been  said  that,  "  nothing 
either  in  the  6th  or  in  any  other  section  ol  the  law,"  should  be  constru- 
ed in  the  manner  prohibited.  It  is  the  whole  law  and  every  section 
of  the  law,  and  every  word  of  every  section,  that  the  general  words, 
"nothing  in  this  law"  embrace. 

It  is  the  duty  of  a  court  to  reconcile  if  possible,  the  conflicting 
provisions  of  a  law  that  they  are  called  to  interpret.  Construe  the 
6th  section  as  a  total  repeal  of  that  of  1704,  and  that  of  1784  exhib- 
its a  contradiction  that  can  never  be  reconciled.  Limit  the  repeal  (o 
those  parts  of  the  act  that  are  repugnant  to  the  constitution,  and  the 
intentions  of  the  Legislature  are  rescued  from  uncertainty  and  re- 
stored to  consistency.  Your  committee  are  quite  aware  that  an  oppo- 
site opinion  has  long  and  extensively  prevailed  ;  but  they  repeat  with 
an  entire,  and  they  trust  not  unbecoming  confidence,  that  the  act  of 
1704,  has  never  been  wholly  repealed  ;  but  that  all  its  provisions  not 
inconsistent  with  the  constitution  of  the  State,  or  altered  in  terms, 
are  still  in  force,  and  now  form  an  essential  part  of  the  chaiter  of 
Trinity  Church. 

Your  committee,  however,  are  fully  persuaded  that  the  applicants 
and  advocates  of  the  law  of  1814,  entertained  a  different  opinion. 
Deceived  by  the  preamble  to  the  act  of  1788,  they  doubtless  believed 
that  the  act  of  1704  was  wholly  repealed,  and  that  its  repeal  rendered 
any  reference  to  its  existence  or  provisions  quite  unnecessary,  and  it 


22 


f  Senate 


is  upon  this  ground,  that  these  gentlemen  are  entirely  acquitted  of 
any  intentional  misrepresentation  or  concealment. 

Still  the  errors  under  which  they  labored  and  in  which  they  in- 
volved the  Legislature,  are  not  the  less  grave,  nor  their  consequences 
upon  the  passage  of  the  law  less  certain.  The  object  of  introducing 
the  words  "  members  of  the  congregation"  into  the  act  of  1814,  is 
quite  apparent. 

It  was  to  exclude  from  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  all  the 
inhabitants  of  the  city,  who  although  otherwise  fully  qualified  by  the 
terms  of  the  law  of  1784,  did  not  happen  to  belong  to  the  congrega- 
tion of  Trinity  Church,  or  any  of  its  chapels ;  that  is,  to  exclude  a 
large  and  rapidly  increasing  majority  of  the  Episcopalians  of  the 
city.  To  such  an  exclusion  the  Legislature  would  certainly  never 
have  consented,  had  they  not  been  induced  to  believe  that  it  was  jus- 
tified by  the  existing  charter  of  the  church  :  and  the  only  arguments 
to  prove  that  it  was  thus  justified,  were  derived  from  a  charter  which 
if  ever  valid,  had  for  more  than  a  century  ceased  to  be  operative,  and 
the  fact  that  within  a  few  years  after  its  date,  it  was  superseded  by 
an  authority  paramount  to  that  by  which  it  was  granted  was  wholly 
omitted. 

Besides  by  defining  the  corporators  by  the  term  "  members  of  the 
congregation  of  Trinity  Church  or  any  of  the  chapels  belonging  to 
the  same,"  and  not  prescribing  the  boundaries  of  such  congregation, 
nor  the  location  of  such  chapels,  the  corporation  which  before  was 
confined  to  the  city  of  New-York,  may  be  extended  to  any  place 
where  Trinity  Church  may  choose  to  erect  chapelsj  and  to  any  per- 
sons who  may  become  "  members  of  the  congregation,"  although 
they  may  reside  out  of  the  city  of  New-York ;  and  thus  this  corpora- 
tion which,  until  the  act  of  1814,  was  expressly  confined  to  the  city 
of  New-York,  may  be  extended  indefinitely,  beyond  the  boundaries 
of  New- York,  while  all  the  Episcopalians  in  the  city  of  New-York, 
who  are  not  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  Church  or  any 
of  its  chapels,  are  excluded  ;  thereby  changing  the  location  of  the 
corporation,  as  well  as  that  of  the  corporators,  and  entirely  defeating 
the  whole  object  of  its  founders  and  donors  ;  and  although  this  has 
not  as  yet  been  carried  out,  who  can  say  that  it  will  not  be,  when 
policy  or  interest  or  different  councils  may  prevail. 


No.  117.] 


23 


In  order  to  avoid  a  contract,  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  that  a 
misrepresentation  or  concealment  of  material  facts  shall  appear  to  have 
been  intentional,  whether  it  proceeded  from  design,  or  ignorance,  in- 
advertance,  or  mistake,  the  result  is  the  same  ;  and  the  reason  of  the 
rule  is  evident,  the  misrepresentation  or  concealment,  alters  the  basis 
on  ■which  the  contract  is  founded  and  vitiates  the  mutual  consent  that 
is  essential  to  its  validity.  These  principles  are  just  as  applicable  to 
an  act  of  the  Legislature  as  to  the  contracts  of  individuals,  and  their 
application  to  the  present  case  seems  to  render  the  repeal  of  the  act 
of  1814  a  necessary  duty.  The  consent  of  the  Legislature  to  the 
passage  of  the  law  was  induced  certainly  not  by  fraud,  but  as  cer- 
tainly by  error,  and  they  were  led  into  the  error  by  those  who,  al- 
though laboring  themselves  under  the  same  mistake,  were  bound  to 
know  and  disclose  the  truth  •  and  if  the  passage  of  a  law  thus 
obtained  involved  even  a  possible  sacrifice  of  rights  that  ought  to  have 
been  protected,  can  there  be  a  plainer  duty  incumbent  on  the  present 
Legislature  than  to  remedy  the  errors  that  their  predecessors  uninten- 
tionally committed.  It  may,  however,  be  said  that  it  is  in  a  court  of 
justice  that  those  who  complain  of  the  wrong  should  seek  their 
remedy,  and  that  the  judges  upon  proof  of  the  suppression  or  errone- 
ous statement  of  material  facts  would  be  bound  to  vacate  the  law 
that  the  Legislature  are  solicited  to  repeal. 

That  a  court  of  law,  however,  in  a  case  like  the  present,  would  be 
competent  to  afford  redress,  by  annulling  the  law,  is  a  position  more 
than  doubtful.  Your  committee  believe  that  there  is  no  precedent  by 
which  it  can  be  sustained,  and  that  to  admit  such  a  precedent  to  be 
established  would  be  to  sanction  a  dangerous  encroachment  by  the 
judiciary  on  the  powers  and  province  of  the  Legislature.  The  Re- 
vised Statutes  authorize  the  Supreme  Court  to  vacate  or  annul  any 
letters  patent  granted  by  the  people  of  the  State,  not  only  when  it 
appears  that  they  were  obtained  by  a  fraudulent  suggestion  or  con- 
cealment, but  equally  when  they  are  proved  to  have  been  issued 
through  mistake  or  ignorance  of  material  facts.  It  is,  however, 
worthy  to  be  remarked,  that  by  a  subsequent  section  the  exercise  of 
the  same  power  in  relation  to  an  act  of  the  Legislature,  creating  or 
renewing  a  corporation  is  limited  to  the  case,  when  the  suggestion 
or  concealment  of  material  facts  by  which  the  passage  of  the  law 


24 


[Senate 


was  obtained  appears  to  have  been  fraudulent.  The  exercise  by  the 
Supreme  Court  even  of  this  modified  power  is  confined  to  the  cases 
in  which  the  Attorney-General  has  been  specially,  directed  by  the 
Legislature  to  institute  the  necessary  proceedings,  and  it  is  only  in 
relation  to  an  act  creating  or  renewing  the  charter  of  a  corporation 
that  the  power  can  be  exercised  at  all.  fR.  S.,  2d  ed.,  p.  479,  §  12, 
13.)  The  provisions  relative  to  letters  patent  is  a  legislative  sanction 
of  a  principle  of  universal  equity,  namely  the  invalidity  of  a  con- 
tract obtained  through  a  mistake  or  in  ignorance  of  material  facts, 
and  the  subsequent  section  equally  proves  that  the  application  of  a 
principle  to  an  act  of  the  Legislature,  is  by  a  wise  jealousy  reserved 
to  the  judgment  and  discretion  of  the  Legislature  itself.  It  would 
be  easy  to  prove  that  this  distinction  is  reasonable  and  just,  and  that 
to  abandon  it,  would  be  to  overthrow  the  independence  of  the  Legis- 
lature, and  in  truth  to  involve'the  whole  administration  of  statutory 
law  in  confusion  and  uncertainty.  But  this  proof  is  unnecessary  ;  it 
is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  distinction  is  established.  Hence  it  is 
certain  that  if  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814  was  obtained  in  the 
mode  that  we  have  supposed,  it  is  the  exclusive  province  and  duty  of 
the  Legislature  to  grant  the  relief  to  which  the  parties  whose  rights 
may  have  been  affected  by  the  law  are  certainly  entitled. 

In  closing  this  branch  of  their  report  your  committee  must  be  per- 
mitted to  add  a  single  remark,  to  show  the  hazard  that  inevitably 
attends  an  interference  by  the  Legislature,  in  the  decision  of  legal 
questions,  by  which  private  rights  may  be  impaired  or  affected. 

The  Legislature  were  required  to  construe  the  previous  acts  of 
1784  and  1788.  They  were  required  to  say  that  these  acts  truly  con- 
strued^ sanctioned  the  law  they  were  solicited  to  pass,  and  they  were 
led  to  believe,  that  this  true  construction  was  to  be  ascertained  by  a 
reference  to  the  prior  charter  of  the  corporation.  Jfow  it  is  quite 
certain  that  had  the  questions  which  the  Legislature,  forgetful  of  its 
true  functions,  undertook  to  decide,  been  submitted  to  a  court  of  jus- 
tice the  reference  to  the  original  charter  in  order  to  fix  the  true  interpre- 
tation of  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  1784,  would  never  have  been 
allowed.  This  section  as  an  explanatory  law  was  designed  to  settle 
finally  all  questions  as  to  the  rights  and  qualifications  of  the  corpo- 
rators of  Trinity  Church,  and  it  is  a  settled  rule  that  such  a  law  is 


No.  117.  J  25 

to  be  construed  only  by  its  own  terms,  and  not  by  any  equity  or  in- 
tendment derived  from  the  prior  law,  that  by  explaining  it  was  meant 
to  supersede.  This  rule  is  established  by  many  English  decisions, 
and  has  the  deliberate  sanction  of  the  supreme  court  of  this  State. 
(Butler  and  Baker's  case,  3  Coke,  35.  Dalbury  Parish  v.  Foster, 
Carthew,  396.  Godfrey  v.  Waite,  Jones  35.  Dash  v.  Van  Kleek, 
opinion,  Thomson,  7  Johnson,  p.  497.)  A.nd  the  reason  of  the  rule  is 
evident,  when  any  expressions  of  the  prior  law  are  not  to  be  found 
in  that  which  is  explanatory,  it  is  a  just  presumption  that  they  were 
intentionally  omitted,  and  hence  to  re-insert  them  would  perhaps 
introduce  or  renew  the  very  doubts  and  uncertainty  it  was  meant  to 
remove.  Thus,  in  the  present  case,  had  the  words  "  members  of  the 
congregation,"  as  qualifying  the  rights  of  corporators  entitled  to 
vote  been  found  both  in  the  charter  of  1697,  and  the  act  of  1704, 
the  omission  in  the  law  of  1784,  would  be  conclusive  to  show  that 
the  Legislature  deemed  it  inexpedient  to  retain  them,  and  if  the  word 
"  Parish"  has  substantially  the  same  meaning  as  congregation,  its  re- 
jection must  be  regarded  as  equally  deliberate  and  final. 

2d.  Our  last  remarks  are  a  fit  introduction  to  the  second  ground 
on  which,  in  the  judgment  of  your  committee,  the  entire  repeal  of 
the  act  of  1814,  may  be  justly  demanded  from  the  Legislature. 
From  the  very  nature  of  the  questions  which  that  law  attempted  to 
decide,  it  was  an  unwarranted  and  dangerous  exercise  of  power 
strictly  judicial.  The  exercise  of  a  power  unwarranted  by  the  prin- 
ciples of  our  constitution,  and  most  dangerous  in  its  operation  upon 
the  rights  of  parties  whose  interest  may  be  effected.  It  is  distinctly 
admitted  that  the  act  of  1814  is  only  to  be  vindicated  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  purely  declaratory,  in  other  words  that  it  is  a  true  expres- 
sion of  the  rights  of  the  corporators  of  Trinity  Church,  as  defined 
by  its  charter,  and  by  the  previous  acts  of  the  Legislature. 

It  is  admitted  that  if  it  altered  the  existing  rights  of  the  corpora- 
tors, it  was  a  plain  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.* 

But  it  seems  to  have  been  forgotten  that  the  act  of  1814,  was  a 
declaratory  law  on  a  subject  over  which  the  Legislature,  as  such,  had 
no  jurisdiction,  and  in  relation  to  which  it  was  impossible  that  it 


•Vide  Preface  to  reprint  of  remarks  on  Trinity  Church  Bill. 
[Senate,  No.  117.]  4 


26  [Senatb 

could  interfere,  unless  at  the  hazard  of  disturbing  existing  interests 
and  destroying  vested  rights. 

It  is  asserted  that  the  act  of  1814  was  not  a  mere  declaration  of 
the  true  meaning  of  prior  statutes,  but  was  declaratory  of  a  result 
that  had  already  occurred,  namely,  that  those  Episcopalians  of  the 
city  who  had  become  corporators  of  the  churches,  had  thus  assumed 
relations,  incompatible  with  their  continuance  as  corporators  in  Tri- 
nity church,  and  had  thus  disfranchised  themselves  by  their  own 
voluntary  act.  (Vide  preface  to  reprint  of  remarks,  p.  4.)  But  it  is 
evident  that  this  statement  instead  of  removing  or  diminishing  those 
objections  to  the  continuance  of  the  act  of  1814,  which  are  derived 
from  its  character  and  possible  operation,  greatly  increases  and 
strengthens  them.  If  it  was  indeed  the  intention  of  the  Legislature 
to  make  this  declaration,  a  plainer  and  more  unjustifiable  exercise  of 
judicial  power  it  would  be  difficult  to  imagine. 

Whether  t-iie  relation  assumed  by  those  Episcopalians  who  had 
united  themselves  to  other  religious  corporations  in  the  same  com- 
mnnion,  are  incompatible  with  their  continuance  as  corporators  in 
Trinity  Church,  whether  their  act  in  thus  uniting  themselves  is  to  be 
deemed  a  voluntary  disfranchisement  or  not,  are  questions  of  great 
difficulty  and  nicety,  that  a  court  of  justice  is  alone  competent  to 
determine,  and  that  a  Legislature  has  no  right  to  entertain  or  consi- 
der. If  these  were  the  questions  that  the  Legislature  in  1813  meant 
to  decide,  the  act  of  1814  was  a  sentence  of  disfranchisement,  invol- 
ving, as  a  necessary  consequence,  a  confiscation  of  the  rights  of  pro- 
perty, pronounced  by  a  tribunal  having  no  jurisdiction,  without  any 
investigation  of  the  facts,  any  examination  of  the  law,  or  any  hearing 
of  the  parties.  And  it  is  this  sentence  that  the  present  Legislature 
which  has  the  power  to  annul,  is  required  to  confirm.  Whether  this 
legislative  decision  were  just  or  unjust,  your  committee  are  not  con- 
cerned to  inquire,  nor  is  it  necessary  for  the  Legislature  now  to 
determine.  It  may  be  that  a  court  of  law  upon  full  consideration  of 
the  facts  and  the  law,  would  have  arrived,  or  may  hereafter  arrive,  at 
the  same  conclusion;  but  that  such  a  sentence,  in  the  form  of  a  legis- 
lative act,  ought  never  to  have  been  pronounced,  and  that  a  prece- 
dent so  unsound  in  principle,  and  so  mischievous  in  its  effects  should 
be  rendered  harmless  by  its  removal,  is  the  serious  conviction  that  your 
committee  feel  it  their  duty  to  express,  and  which  they  trust  that  the 


No.  117.]  27 

Legislature,  in  its  future  action,  will  adopt  and  manifest.  But  even 
this  objection  does  not  exist  as  to  all  that  class  of  Episcopalians  in 
the  city  of  New-York  who  are  not  members  of  any  congregation  as 
such  in  the  city. 

Were  it  certain  that  courts  of  justice  considering  the  law  of  1814 
as  purely  declaratory,  would  give  no  eflfect  to  its  provisions,  except 
as  far  as  they  might  deem  them  to  be  a  just  exposition  of  the  rights 
of  the  corporators  as  defined  by  the  acts  of  1784  and  1788,  the 
protection  of  the  memorialists  could  not  be  said  to  require  its  repeal; 
but  the  effect  which  is  and  ought  to  be  attributed,  and  which  the 
remonstrants  and  their  counsel  contend  ought  to  be  attributed  to  the 
law,  is  that  of  an  absvlute  judgment  of  a  court  of  competent  juris- 
diction and  ultimate  authority  ;  and  hence  the  question  instantly 
arises  whether  such  an  effect  can  be  given  to  a  declaratory  law,  with- 
out a  violation  of  the  most  essential  principles  of  our  constitution  and 
government;  and  if  this  question  must  be  answered  in  the  negative, 
the  only  effectual  mode  of  preventing  such  an  unjust  application  of 
the  law,  is  to  repeal  it. 

There  can  be  no  ground  of  complaint  on  the  part  of  the  remonstrants, 
if  the  rights  of  Trinity  Church  as  a  corporation  are  left  t©  be  determined 
by  the  courts  of  justice  upon  the  same  grounds  as  if  the  act  of  1814  had 
never  been  passed.  If  the  qualification  of  voters  as  defined  by  the 
2nd  section  of  that  law  are,  as  has  been  alleged,  in  precise  conformity 
to  the  qualifications  of  corporators  as  declared  by  the  act  of  1704, 
the  courts  of  justice  will  so  decide,,  and  the  decision  will  be  a  much 
better  and  more  satisfactory  security  against  groundless  claims,  than 
the  provisions  of  the  law.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  provisions  of 
the  law  construed  according  to  their  obvious  meaning,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  proper  legal  tribunals,  would  vary  materially  the  rights  of  the 
corporators  as  they  previously  existed,  by  excluding  the  large  majo- 
rity of  the  Episcopalians  of  the  city,  from  any  share  in  the  adminis- 
tration or  any  benefit  from  the  application  of  the  vast  property  in 
which  they  are  jointly  interested,  it  is  certain  that  tlie  present  rulers 
of  the  church  ought  not  even  to  wish  to  retain  a  law  that  is  thus 
proved  to  have  been  unjust  and  unconstitutional  in  its  origin,  and  to 
which  even  the  Legislature  that  passed  it  would  never  have  consen- 
ted, had  they  known  or  anticipated  that  such  could  be  its  operation. 
In  few  words,  if  the  law  of  1814  were  a  true  declaration  of  the  exist- 


28 


[Senate 


ing  rights  of  the  corporators,  its  repeal  will  be  harmless,  it  will 
change  nothing,  the  same  declaration  will  be  made  by  the  courts.  If 
it  altered  the  right  of  the  corporators  it  was  unjust  when  passed. 
The  Legislature  was  deceived  that  passed  it,  and  to  complain  of  its 
repeal,  is  to  avow  a  desire  to  retain  the  fruits  of  injustice  and  error. 

It  is  as  a  declaratory  law  that  the  act  of  1813  has  been  vindicated, 
and  it  is  because  it  was  a  declaratory  law  that  your  committee  con- 
demn its  passage,  and  urge  its  repeal. 

On  this  question  English  precedents  and  authorities  are  wholly  in- 
applicable. There  are  no  bounds  to  the  authority  of  the  English 
parliament,  and  all  its  acts  with  whatever  forms  their  injustice  or 
usurpation  may  be  clothed  are  legally  valid.  It  is  upon  principles 
wholly  different  that  we  are  to  judge  of  the  validity  and  propriety  of 
declaratory  laws  in  a  government  like  our  own.  A  declaratory  law 
is  a  law  attempting  to  fix  the  true  meaning  and  construction  of  a 
prior  statute,  and  claiming  to  give  to  the  interpretation  that  it  adopts 
the  effect  of  a  judicial  and  final  decision. 

Such  was  the  avowed  object  of  the  act  of  1814,  avowed  in  the 
very  preamble  of  the  law,  and  such  is  the  effect  now  sought  to  be 
given  to  the  decision  that  the  Legislature  then  pronounced. 

In  the  judgment  of  your  committee  if  there  is  any  maxim  of  con- 
stitutional law  that  demands  a  peculiar  reverence  and  an  inviolable 
observance,  it  is  that  which  forbids  the  union  of  legislative  and  judi- 
cial powers  in  the  same  body,  and  it  is  this  maxim  that  in  the  passage 
of  every  declaratory  law  such  as  we  have  described,  is  plainly  vio- 
lated. It  has  been  justly  observed  that  the  union  which  this  maxim 
prohibits,  is  the  very  definition  and  essence  of  tyranny,  and  that  it  is 
only  to  be  prevented  by  a  rigid  adherence  to  the  rule,  "  that  the 
power  that  makes,  is  not  the  power  to  construe  a  law.  (1  Kent's 
Com.  Ed.  5,  p.  456.)  We  but  repeat  the  language  of  the  venerated 
commentator  on  American  law,  (whose  dicta  are  themselves  rapidly 
acquiring  the  force  of  laws,)  that  without  having  recourse  to  the  ele- 
mentary writers,  or  to  the  popular  conventions  of  Europe,  we  have 
a  most  commanding  authority  in  the  sense  of  the  American  people, 
that  the  right  to  interpret  laws,  does  and  ought  to  belong  exclu- 
sively to  the  courts  of  justice.  (Dash  v.  Van  Kleek,  Kent,  Ch.  J., 


No.  117]  29 

7  John.  500.)  By  repealing  this  law  we  shall  restore  the  courts  of 
justice  in  this  State  to  the  untramellcd  exercise  of  the  right  that  ex- 
clusively belonged  to  them,  and  which  the  Legislature  ought  never  to 
have  usurped,  that  of  interpreting  the  law  of  1784  and  17SS,  accord- 
ing to  their  own  sense  of  their  true  meaning  and  legal  construction. 
By  placing  the  repeal  on  this  high  ground  we  shall  probably  prevent 
any  future  abuse  or  usurpation  of  power  similar  to  that  we  now  cor- 
rect. 

The  third  and  fourth  reasons  that  have  decided  the  committee  to 
recommend  an  entire  repeal  of  the  law  under  consiiieration  they  will 
now  proceed  briefly  to  explain. 

The  act  of  1814,  by  a  very  singular  omission,  abandoned  all  the 
securities  for  continuing  and  preserving  the  distinctive  religious  cha- 
racter of  Trinity  church,  as  a  protestant  episcopal  church,  in  commu- 
nion with  the  church  of  the  State,  that  the  previous  acts  of  the  Le- 
giflature  had  so  carefully  provided.  In  the  act  of  '84,  that  security 
is  found  in  the  provision  that  requires  the  corporators  to  be  professing 
members  of  the  episcopal  church,  and  in  the  act  of  '88,  it  is  strength- 
ened and  contemplated  by  the  name  given  to  the  corporation  of  "  the 
rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York,  in  communion  of 
the  protestant  episcopal  church  in  the  State  of  New- York  ;"  a  name 
that  we  cannot  regard  as  purely  verbal,  but  as  meant  to  designate  the 
true  character  of  the  persons  incorporated. 

Such  was  the  evident  and  declared  intention  of  the  name  given  to 
tic  church  in  its  original  charter,  and  we  are  bound  to  presume  that 
the  substituted  name  was  intended  in  the  same  manner  to  be  descrip- 
tive and  significant.  By  changing  this  name  to  that  of  rector,  church 
wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  church  in  the  city  of  New-York, 
the  security  that  it  gave,  and  the  obligation  that  it  imposed  are  wholly 
lost,  and  the  change  effected  by  the  first  section  of  the  same  act. 
equally  forfeits  the  security  that  the  act  of  1784  provided,  in  not 
requiring  that  the  persons  entitled  to  be  in  the  election  of  church 
wardens  and  vestrymen  shall  be  professing  members  of  the  episcopal 
church.  It  has  indeed  been  said  that  this  qualification  is  retained  in 
the  provision  that  requires  that  the  persons  entitled  to  vote  "  shall 
form  a  part  of  the  same  religious  corporation."  But  this  interpreta- 
tion of  the  words  in  question  your  committee  are  compelled  to  reject, 


30  [Senate 

as  not  merely  forced  but  wholly  inadmissible.  On  reading  the  second 
section  in  which  the  words  forming  part  of  the  same  religious  corpo- 
ration are  found,  it  will  at  once  be  seen  that  they  refer  to  the  chapels 
belonging  to  Trinity  Church,  and  not  to  the  individual  members  of  the 
congregation,  and  that  from  the  place  in  which  they  stand,  they  are 
Susceptible  of  no  other  interpretation  ;  the  words  "  part  of"  can  refer 
to  nothing  else  than  "  chapels  "  forming  a  part  of,  &c.  Nor  are  these 
remarkable  omissions  in  the  act  of  1814  to  be  supplied  by  a  reference 
to  the  original  charters  of  the  church.  The  only  provisions  they 
contained,  for  preserving  to  the  corporation  a  distinctive  religious 
character  were  those  that  required  the  rector  and  inhabitants  whom 
it  incorporated  to  be  of  the  communion  of  the  church  of  England, 
and  which  subjected  the  church  to  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  the 
bishop  of  London.  But  the  security  that  these  provisions  afforded 
was  neiessarily  lost,  when  the  communion  of  Trinity  church  with 
the  church  of  England  was  dissolved,  and  its  subjection  to  the  juris- 
diction of  the  bishop  of  London  wholly  abolished.  Your  committee 
therefore  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  if  the  act  of  1814  is  to  be  sus- 
tained as  a  valid  law,  Trinity  church  by  the  obligation  of  its  charter, 
and  as  a  necessary  condition  of  its  existence,  is  no  longer  a  protestant 
church.  Should  the  rector,  church  wardens  and  vestrymen,  supported 
by  a  majority  of  the  congregation,  choose  to  unite  themselves  to  the 
the  church  of  Rome,  they  may  retain  their  charter,  all  the  privileges 
it  confers,  and  all  the  property  that  by  virtue  of  its  provisions  and  by 
by  subsequent  grants  they  now  enjoy,  all  the  influence  and  wealth  of 
this  powerful  corporation,  may  hereafter  be  devoted  to  the  spread  of 
the  very  doctrines  that  by  the  original  terms  of  its  creation,  it  was 
bound  to  resist,  in  utter  disregard  and  in  flagrant  violation  of  the  in- 
tentions of  those  by  whom  their  church  was  founded,  and  from  whose 
bounty  their  vast  possessions  .ere  derived. 

Your  committee  are  very  far  from  asserting  or  meaning  to  insinuate 
that  there  exists  any  present  actual  danger  of  such  a  transfer,  yet 
when  we  advert  to  the  nature  of  the  new  doctrines  that  are  said  to 
prevail  extensively  in  the  Episcopal  church,  and  to  the  eff"ect  which 
they  are  known  to  have  produced  on  the  minds  of  those  who  have 
embraced  them,  it  must  be  confesse{i  that  the  apprehensions  of  those 
who  believe  that  Trinity  church  may  lose  its  protestant  character,  are 
not  to  be  derided  as  merely  visionary.    Against  even  the  possible 


No.  117.]  31 

occurrence  of  such  an  event  those  Episcopalians  of  the  city  and  State 
who  adhere  ^v^th  an  undiminished  love  to  the  protestant  doctrines  of 
their  church,  are  entitled  to  a  full  security,  and  by  restoring  the  char- 
ter of  the  church  to  its  original  purity  and  integrity  that  security 
will  be  given. 

There  is  another  omission  in  the  act  of  1814,  quite  as  singular,  al- 
though by  no  means  as  alarming  in  its  possible  consequences  as  that 
we  have  already  noticed. 

It  is  the  protestant  Episcopal  inhabitants  of  thejcity  of  New-York, 
that  the  original  charter  alone  incorporates,  they  alone  are  to  elect 
the  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  the  church,  and  to  their  use  alone  is 
the  property  that  the  corporation  is  permitted  to  hold  and  acquire  to 
be  devoted. 

In  the  acts  of  '84  and  '88,  this  limitation  of  the  benefit  of  the  char- 
ter to  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York,  is  expressly  retained, 
in  that  of  1814  we  shall  look  in  vain  for  a  trace  of  its  existence.  If 
the  persons  claiming  to  vote  under  the  provisions  of  that  law  in  the 
election  of  church  wardens  and  vestrymen,  are  members  of  the  con- 
gregation of  Trinity  church  or  of  any  of  its  chapels,  and  are  pew 
holders  and  communicants,  their  claim  can  not  be  resisted  whether 
they  reside  in  the  city  of  New-York,  or  that  of  Brooklyn  or  Jersey, 
or  elsewhere,  as  we  have  before  shown.  The  law  does  not  require 
their  inhabiting  in  any  particular  place  as  a  condition  on  which  the 
exercise  of  their  rights  depends. 

That  the  omissions  that  we  have  thus  shown  to  exist  in  the  act  of 
1814  are  unimportant,  and  the  changes  that  they,  have  effected  in  the 
the  charter  of  the  church,  as  it  previously  existed,  slight  and  immate- 
rial, will  not  be  pretended.  They  are  of  primary  and  vital  importance. 
They  violate  the  most  essential  conditions  on  which  the  exercise  of 
the  privileges  that  the  charter  conferred  was  made  to  depend. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  imagine  a  more  grievous  violation  of  the 
rights  of  the  corporators,  than  a  law  permitting  the  transfer  of  their 
corporate  privileges,  and  corporate  property  to  persons  neither  in- 
habitants of  the  city  of  New-York,  nor  members  of  a  protestant 
church,  and  if  the  right  of  electing  wardens  and  vestrymen  is  vested 


32  [Senate 

only  in  those  to  whom  it  is  given  by  the  law  of  1814,  there  are  no 
longer  means  by  which  the  transfer  that  we  have  described  can  be 
prevented.  That  alterations  so  material,  so  unjust  in  the  charter  of 
Trinity  church  were  designed  or  contemplated  by  the  applicants  for 
the  law  of  1814,  your  committee  are  very  far  from  believing.  There 
is  no  ground  for  the  belief  or  suspicion.  It  was  to  a  different  object 
that  the  minds  of  the  advocates  for  the  law  were  directed,  and  in  the 
anxiety  of  their  zeal  to  accomplish  this  the  defect  to  which  we  have 
adverted  arose.  Their  existence  and  their  consequences  wholly 
escaped  their  attention.  But  these  defects  do  exist.  They  form  an 
additional  and  very  striking  proof  of  the  hazards  that  attend  judicial 
legislation  ;  and  the  wrongs  and  evils  that  their  continued  existence 
might  produce,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Legislature  to  remedy  and  pre- 
vent, by  the  repeal  of  the  law  that  may  be  construed  to  give  them  a 
sanction. 

That  this  law  was  passed  hastily  and  probably  without  much  exa- 
mination, will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  journal.  On  the  17th  of 
March,  1813,  the  petition  of  Trinity  Church,  praying  for  the  passage 
of  the  law  was  presented  and  read  in  the  Senate.  On  the  same  day 
the  member  who  introduced  the  petition  asked  for  leave  to  bring  in 
a  bill  pursuant  to  its  prayer.  Leave  was  given,  and  on  the  same  day 
the  bill  was  introduced,  read  a  first  and  second  time,  and  referred  to  a 
committee  of  the  whole.  On  the  25th  of  March,  the  bill  was  finally 
passed  in  the  Senate,  and  on  the  2d  of  April  in  the  Assembly,  and 
in  neither  house  was  there  any  reference  to  a  committee,  to  investi- 
gate and  ascertain  the  facts,  to  examine  and  report  upon  the  law,  and 
thus  within  fifteen  days  from  that  on  which  the  petition  was  read,  a  bill 
that,  regarding  the  magnitude  of  the  interests  involved,  and  looking 
to  its  immediate  and  prospective  consequences,  was  probably  as 
weighty  and  important  as  any  that  the  Legislature  of  this  State  has 
ever  adopted,  so  far  as  depended  upon  the  action  of  the  two  houses, 
became  a  law. 

On  these  proceedings  your  committee  deem  it  unnecessary  to  make 
any  comments.  It  is  manifest  that  the  bill  was  passed  into  a  law 
with  a  despatch  not  usual  in  cases  of  such  magnitude. 

In  conclusion  it  will  not  escape  the  attention  of  the  Senate,  that 
your  committee  have  not  expressed  any  opinion  as  to  the  validity  of 


Ko.  117. 1 


33 


the  grounds  on  which  the  memorialists  seem  chiefly  to  rely  in  seeking 
the  relief  for  which  their  memorial  prays,  namely,  that  the  act  of 
1814  was  unconstitutional,  as  violating  the  existing  vested  rights  of 
the  corporators  of  Trinity  Church,  their  right  of  voting,  and  conse- 
quently their  rights  of  property.  The  silence  of  your  committee  on 
'hese  to;)ics  is  intentional.  It  springs  from  their  entire  conviction, 
that  the  questions  which  they  involve  are  precisely  those  that  the  Legis- 
lature has  no  right  to  determine  or  consider.  The  present  Legislature 
have  no  right  to  say,  that  the  rights  of  the  memorialists  as  defined  by 
the  act  of  1784  have  been  violated,  and  that  they  are  now  legally 
entitled  to  the  privileges  that  they  claim,  exactly  for  the  same  rea- 
sons that  the  Legislature  of  1813  had  no  right  to  say,  that  the  Epis- 
copal inhabitants  of  the  city  at  that  time  not  members  of  the  con- 
gregation of  Trinity  Church  or  of  any  of  its  chapels,  ivere  not  enti- 
tled to  the  privileges  that  by  the  terms  of  the  bill  they  passed  were 
expressly  denied  to  them.  An  affirmative  decision  would  be  quite  as 
truly  an  usurped  exercise  of  judicial  power  as  a  negative.  Your 
committee  have  no  wish  to  imitate  the  example  they  condemn. 
They  desire  to  abolish,  not  to  follow  the  precedent.  If  the  memo- 
rialists really  possess  the  rights  that  they  claim,  they  should  be  left 
to  assert  and  vindicate  them  in  a  court  of  justice  since  it  is  the  exclu- 
sive province  of  a  court  of  justice  to  establish  the  validity  of  thei 
claims. 

But  your  committee  are  of  opinion  that  the  access  of  the  memori- 
alists to  a  court  of  justice  should  no  longer  be  barred,  and  that  the 
impediment  to  a  proper  assertion  of  their  rights  that  a  Legislature  has 
created,  should  be  wholly  removed. 

The  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814,  will  eifect  this  removal,  but  will  in 
no  manner  express  the  sense  of  the  Legislature,  as  to  the  legal  or 
equitable  rights  of  the  contending  parties.  Such  a  repeal  will  indeed 
be  a  solemn  recognition  of  the  truth,  and  commanding  authority  of 
those  maxims  of  constitutional  law,  that  we  have  shown  to  have  been 
violated.  It  will  be  evidence  of  our  serious  conviction  that  the  linait 
by  which  the  respective  departments  of  our  government  are  wisely 
separated,  ought  never  to  be  transgressed,  and  of  the  expediency  of 
affording  this  evidence,  your  committee  cannot  doubt,  and  they 
cherish  the  hope  that  the  Senate,  by  a  prompt  and  decisive  action 
will  ratify  the  sentiments  that  they  have  expressed. 

[Senate,  No  117.]  5 


34 


It  remains  only  to  state  why  your  committee,  instead  of  limiting 
the  repeal,  that  they  recommend  to  the  fust  and  second  sections  of 
the  act  of  1814,  are  of  opinion  and  advise  that  it  should  embrace  the 
whole  law.  The  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  sections,  it  will  be  seen  on 
examination,  are  liable  to  the  principal  objections,  that  have  al- 
ready been  stated  ;  each  of  them  involves  a  plain  exercise  of  judicial 
power,  or  such  an  alteration  of  the  chartered  rights  of  Trinity 
Church,  as  it  was  not  within  the  competence  of  the  Legislature  to 
establish.  The  main  object  of  these  sections  is  to  exclude  from  the 
corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  the  individual  members  of  the  con- 
gregation of  every  chapel  that  had  already  or  might  thereafter  be  sep- 
arated from  the  church.  They  were  meant  therefore,  to  create  or  pro- 
duce a  disfranchisement,  that  if  not  created  by  the  existing  charter 
or  by  law,  the  Legislature  had  no  right  to  pronounce.  It  is  true  that 
these  sections  also  profess  to  confirm  the  previous  or  future  grants  of 
Trinity  Church  to  religious  societies,  and  to  authorize  upon  certain 
terms,  the  future  separatioQ  of  chapels,  and  their  erection  into  inde- 
pendent churches,  but  we  cannot  believe  that  it  will  be  seriously  as- 
serted that  legislation  for  either  of  these  purposes  was  necessary  or 
proper. 

The  grants  made  by  Trinity  Church  to  other  religious  corpora- 
tions were  either  authorized  by  its  existing  charter  or  they  were  not. 
If  they  were,  their  confirmation  by  the  Legislature  was  useless  ;  if 
they  were  not,  the  Legislature  had  no  right  to  confirm  (hem.  Since 
the  Legislature  could  not  sanction  a  breach  of  trust  to  the  preju- 
dice of  those  for  whose  use  the  property  was  exclusively  intended. 
If  it  be  said  that  the  validity  of  such  grants  was  merely  doubtful,  the 
the  answer  occurs,  to  resolve  such  doubts,  is  the  province  of  the 
judges,  not  of  the  Legislature.  In  the  mind  of  a  lawyer,  the  legis- 
lative confirmation  of  a  deed,  always  excites  doubts  instead  of  remov- 
ing them.  Every  lawyer  knows  that  it  affords  no  security  to  the 
party  who  holds  the  property.  If  the  deed  is  void  in  law,  and  whe- 
ther it  is  so  or  not,  a  court  of  law  can  alone  determine.  Some  other 
person  than  the  grantee  must  be  entitled  in  law  or  equity  to  the  pro- 
perty conveyed,  and  his  rights  the  Legislature  cannot  change  ;  un- 
der the  pretext  of  confirming  a  grant  to  one  person,  it  cannot  confis- 
cate the  property  of  another.     Your  committee  are  well  assured 


No.  117.] 


3o 


that  those  who  hold  the  property  that  Trinity  Church  has  con- 
veyed, have  no  anxiety  as  to  the  security  of  their  title,  and  no  desire 
of  legislative  confirmation. 

The  provisions  in  relation  to  the  separation  of  chapels,  your  com- 
mittee regard  as  manifestly  useless.  The  repeal  of  the  statutory  pro- 
vision would  never  affect  the  validity  of  such  a  separation,  by  that  mu- 
tual consent  which  the  law  requires. 

The  6th  section  of  the  act  has  no  special  relaticn  to  Trinity  Church; 
but  on  distinct  grounds,  is  highly  objectionable,  nor  can  your  com- 
mitte  refrain  from  expressing  their  great  surprise  that  the  provision 
of  this  section  has  been  suffered  for  so  long  a  period  to  continue  in 
force.  To  relieve  a  religious  society  from  the  obligation  of  making 
an  annual  report  to  the  Legislature  is,  in  the  judgment  of  your  com- 
mittee, to  render  nugatory  all  those  provisions  of  its  charter,  and 
other  laws  that  impose  any  limitation  on  the  amount  of  its  property 
or  income.  Unless  the  report  is  required  and  made  the  salutary  pro- 
hibition, will  never  be  enforced.  The  6th  section  of  the  act  is  there- 
fore a  virtual  abandonment  of  all  those  sound  maxims  of  public  poli- 
cy, by  which  the  necessity  of  limiting  the  property  and  income  of  re- 
ligious corporations  has  been  inculcated. 


Your  committee  in  conformity  to  the  views  they  have  expressed 
ask  leave  to  introduce  a  bill. 


'EXAMINATION 

OF  A 

MINORITY  REPORT 

MADE  BY  THE 

.  HON.  ORVILLE  CLARK, 

TO  THE 

SENATE  OF  THE  STATE  OF  NE¥-YORK, 

ON  THE 

MEMORIALS 

OF  INHABITANTS  OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW-YORK,  IN  RELATION  TO 

TRINITY  CHURCH. 


ALBANY: 

PRINTED  BY  C.  VAN  BENTHUYSEN  AND  CO. 


1846. 


EXAMINATION 

Of  a  minority  report  made  by  the  Hon.  Orville  Clark,  to 
the  Senate  of  the  State  of  New- York,  on  the  memo- 
rials of  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York,  in  rela- 
tion to  Trinity  Church. 


The  committee  on  charitable  and  religious  societies  of  the  Senate  of 
the  State  of  New-York,  to  which  were  referred  the  memorials  and  re- 
monstrances on  the  subject  of  legislative  interference  with  the  charter 
of  Trinitj^  church,  having  disagreed  in  their  conclusions,  two  reports 
have  been  made  by  its  members.  One,  by  a  majority  of  the  committee 
recommending  "  that  no  legislative  action  be  had  on  the  subject,  and 
that  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners  be  denied;"  the  other  by  the  Hon. 
Orville  Clark,  a  senator  from  Washington  county,  recommending  the 
repeal  of  the  act  of  1814.  This  report  of  Mr.  Clark's  occupies  thirty- 
five  pages,  and  contains  so  many  extraordinary  statements,  and  what  are 
deemed  erroneous  representations  of  facts  and  documents,  and  so  many 
inferences  believed  to  be  entirely  unwarranted,  as  to  require  an  exposi- 
tion of  its  errors  and  fallacies  by  some  one  whose  leisure  will  permit  that 
thorough  examination  which  it  is  hardly  possible  for  a  member  of  the 
Legislature  to  bestow,  amid  the  numerous  and  various  subjects  which  at 
this  time  occupy  attention. 

With  the  design,  and  in  the  hope  of  throwing  some  light  on  what 
Mr.  Clark  has  rendered  obscure,  and  of  assisting  an  intelligent  and  im- 
partial judgment,  these  pages  have  been  prepared  and  are  respectfully 
submitted  for  candid  consideration.  They  will  be  confined  to  an  exami- 
nation of  Mr.  Clark's  positions,  and  any  repetition  of  the  very  able 
views  of  the  majority  of  the  committee  will,  as  far  as  possibje,  be  avoid- 
ed. Nor  will  an  attempt  be  made  to  notice  many  remarks  and  state- 
ments in  Mr.  Clark's  report,  which  seem  calculated  rather  to  excite  and 
inflame  prejudice  than  to  aid  judgment,  and  which  have  a  very  remote, 
if  any,  bearing  upon  the  questions  at  issue.  This  course  is  adopted  to 
avoid  excessive  prolixity,  v*rith  entire  confidence  in  the  intelligence  of 
those  for  whose  use  these  pages  are  intended,  and  in  tneir  determina- 


4 


tion  to  decide  and  act  uprightly  and  conscientiously.  In  the  style  of 
♦  these  remarks,  an  effort  will  be  made  to  imitate  the  modest  and  unassu- 
ming manner  of  the  report  of  the  majority  of  the  committee,  rather 
than  the  somewhat  positive  tone  of  Mr.  Clark's  report;  and  care  will  be 
taken  not  to  affirm  that  to  be  undeniable,  which  admits  of  serious  ques- 
tion, or  to  pronounce  that  impossible,  which  may  have  actually  occurred. 

Although  the  other  members  of  the  committee  have  differed  from 
Mr.  Clark  so  entirely  in  their  conclusions,  yet,  a  casual  reader  would 
infer  from  the  language  of  his  report,  that  the  committee  had  really 
agreed  on  every  important  point,  and  concurred  in  the  rseults.  Thus 
in  p.  7  it  is  said  ''■your  committee  have  no  doubt  or  hesitation  in 
stating  the  necessary  effect  of  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783,"  &c.;  at 
p.  10,  "  But  yotir  committee  are  unable  to  admit  the  force  or  even 
the  propriety  of  these  observations."  In  p.  12,  the  language  is  quite 
inaccurate  "  your  committee  will  state  the  grounds  on  which  they  recom- 
mend the  entire  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814."  Surely  the  committee  has 
made  a  very  different  recommendation.  And  the  report  at  p.  35,  thus 
closes:  "your  committee  in  conformity  to  the  views  they  have  express- 
ed, ask  leave  to  introduce  a  bill."  Without  pursuing  these  references 
further,  sufficient  appears  to  show  the  carelessness  with  which  the  re- 
port has  been  ushered  before  the  public,  and  to  excite  a  doubt  whether 
there  may  not  be  similar  carelessness  in  other  equally  important 
portions  of  it.* 

It  is  quite  remarkable  that  Mr.  Clark  wholly  repudiates  the  grounds 
on  which  the  memorialists  placed  their  case  and  solicited  the  interven- 
tion of  the  Legislature,  and  utterly  denies  the  sufficiency  of  those 
grounds  to  justify  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814.  He  says  "  that  the  ques- 
tions which  they  involve  are  precisely  those  that  the  Legislature  have 
no  right  to  determine  or  [even]  consider.'"  (p.  33.)  "  If  the  memorial- 
ists really  possess  the  right  that  they  claim,  they  should  be  left  to  assert 
and  vindicate  them  in  a  court  of  justice,  since  it  is  the  exclusive  pro- 
vince of  a  court  of  justice  to  establish  the  validity  of  their  claims."  (p. 
33.)  As  this  is  the  same  conclusion  expressed  by  the  majority  of  the 
committee  in  their  report,  it  would  after  all,  seem  that  the  committee 
were  in  fact  unanimous.    Still,  Mr.  Clark  proceeds  to  say  that  "  the 

 L  .  

•It  is  due  to  the  Hon.  Senator  to  state,  that  the  newspapers  containing  the  account  of 
the  presentation  of  the  minority  report,  adtled  that  Mr.  Clark  before  reading  it,  apo- 
logised for  its  being  in  the  form  of  a  majority  report,  and  engaged  to  alter  it  in  that 
respect  before  delivering  it  to  the  printer.  And  the  bill  reported  by  him,  purported 
to  be  brought  in  by  Mr.  Clark  from  the  minority  of  the  committee.  Still,  to  readers 
who  may  never  see  the  bill  or  the  newspaper  account,  the  report  as  printed  i»  calcu- 
lated to  convey  an  entirely  erroneous  impression. 


5 


committee  are  of  opinion  that  the  access  of  the  memorialists  to  a  court 
of  justice  should  no  longer  be  barred,  and  that  the  impediment  to  the 
proper  assertion  of  their  rights,  created  by  the  act  of  1814,  should  be 
removed." 

The  majority  of  the  conunittee  expressly  deny  that  any  obstacles  exist 
to  the  legal  assertion  of  the  rights  of  the  memorialists,  because  if  the 
act  of  1814  is  unconstitutional,  the  courts  will  so  declare.    ]Mr.  Clark 
has  not  stated  with  explicitness,  or  indeed  at  all,  how  the  act  of  1814 
bars  the  access  of  the  memorialists  to  a  court  of  justice,  or  how  it  is  an 
impediment  to  a  proper  assertion  of  their  rights.    This  is  a  point  which 
has  been  again  and  again  presented  to  the  memorialists  and  their  advo- 
cates, and  their  attention  invited  to  it.    They  have  been  asked,  the  Le- 
gislature has  been  asked,  why  interpose  at  all,  when  there  is  no  occasion 
for  it  ?    And  j-et  no  answer  is  given — no  necessitj'  for  the  interposition 
is  shown.    The  elaborate  argument  of  Mr.  Clark  furnishes  none,  except 
that  the  act  of  1814  is,  in  his  opinion,  a  bad  precedent  of  judicial 
legislation.    He  contends  that  it  transcended  the  legitimate  powers  of 
the  Legislature,  that  it  violated  rights  secured  by  compact,  but  asserts 
that  the  memorialists  should  "  be  left  to  assert  and  vindicate  them  (those 
rights)  in  a  court  of  justice and  yet  he  would  repeal  an  act  which,  if  his 
argument  proves  any  thing,  is  a  perfect  blanic,  is  no  bar,  and  presents  no 
impediment  whatever  to  the  legal  assertion  of  those  rights.    There  are 
doubtless  many  bad  precedents  on  the  statute  book,  and  some  laws  which 
our  coiuts  have  pronounced  unconstitutional.    But,  until  the  present  in- 
stance, it  is  confidently  believed  no  bill  has  been  reported  to  expunge 
those  precedents  or  to  repeal  those  laws,  merely  because  they  were 
"mischievous  in  their  efiects,"  as  examples,  and  therefore  should  be 
rendered  "harmless  by  removal."    Confidence  in  subsequent  legisla- 
tures has  been  felt,  that  their  own  reason  and  intelligence  would  prevent 
their  being  led  astray  by  unsound  precedents  or  void  laws.    Mr.  Clark 
does  indeed  sa}',  (p.  27,)  that  "were  it  certain  that  courts  of  justice 
would  give  no  efiect  to  the  act  of  1814,  the  protection  of  the  memo- 
rialists could  not  be  said  to  require  its  repeal."    But,  he  says  it  is  con- 
tended that  the  act  is  an  absolute  judg?nent  of  a  court  of  competent  ju- 
risdiction and  ultimate  authority;  and  then  he  says,  the  question  arises 
whether  such  an  effect  can  be  given  to  the  act  without  a  violation  of  the 
principles  of  our  constitution  ?"    And  he  concludes  that  if  this  question 
must  be  answered  in  the  negative,  that  is,  if  the  act  of  1814  be  uncon- 
stitutional,— the  only  effectual  mode  of  preventing  an  unjust  application 
of  it,  is,  to  repeal  it.    With  great  deference  this  course  seems  to  be  quite 
a  non  sequitur.    If  the  act  be  so  clearly  unconstitutional,  there  is  no 


6 


danger  whatever  of  its  being  unjustly  applied  by  the  courts.  And  the 
very  ground  on  which  he  thus  recommends  the  repeal  of  the  act,  in- 
volves the  necessity  of  this  Legislature  deciding  that  it  was  unconstitu- 
tional, and  ought  not  therefore  to  be  applied  to  the  case  for  which  it 
was  intended;  that  is,  for  the  Legislature  to  assume  the  functions  of  a 
court.  How  this  is  to  be  reconciled  with  the  declaration  at  p.  33  of 
the  same  report,  already  quoted,  that  the  Legislature  has  no  right  "  to 
determine  or  consider"  the  question  whether  the  act  of  1814  was  un- 
constitutional, must  be  left  for  others  to  determine.  But  the  object  of 
these  remarks  is  not  so  much  to  exhibit  what  are  supposed  to  be 
the  contradictions  of  Mr.  Clark's  report,  as  to  show  that  Mr.  Clark 
himself  cannot  urge  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814  without  calling  upon 
the  Legislature  to  act  judicially. 

This  part  of  the  subject  ought  not  to  be  dismissed  without  a  comment 
upon  the  extraordinary  assertion  above  quoted  from  p.  27,  that  the  re- 
monstrants and  their  counsel  contend  that  the  eifect  to  be  attributed  to 
the  act  of  1814,  is  that  of  an  absolute  judgment  of  a  court  of  compe- 
tent jurisdiction  and  ultimate  authority.  In  no  one  of  the  published 
papers  is  any  such  principle  contended  for,  and  the  gentlemen  who 
attended  before  the  committee  absolutely  deny  that  they  ever  advanced 
such  an  idea.^  The  argument  was,  and  has  been  throughout,  and  is 
still,  that  it  was  competent  to  the  Legislature,  in  its  legislative  capacity, 
with  the  consent  of  the  other  party  lo  the  compact,  so  to  amend  it,  as  to 
remove  doubts,  and  prevent  difficulties  growing  out  of  a  change  in  the 
state  of  things.  Any  further  exposition  of  this  argument  is  postponed 
until  we  come  to  consider  that  subject  distinctly,  in  a  subsequent  part  of 
these  remarks. 

Dissatisfied,  apparently,  with  the  ground  thus  assumed,  that  the  act 
was  unconstitutional,  and  therefore  should  be  repealed — a  ground,  as 
already  stated  which  he  repudiates  in  another  part  of  his  report,  Mr. 
Clark  proceeds  to  state  in  a  formal  manner,  somewhat  imposing,  the 
grounds  on  which  as  he  says  the  committee,  but  in  fact  himself  only, 
recommends  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814.  The  first  reason  given  at  p. 
12,  13,  &c.,  is  that  the  consent  of  the  Legislature  to  the  act  of 
1814,  was  induced  by  a  misrepresentation  of  material  facts  ;  that  the 
Legislature  was  misled — that  both  the  fact  and  the  law  of  the  case 

•  It  was  urged  by  one  of  them  who  last  addressed  the  committee,  that  whether  the 
law  of  1814  was  or  was  not  unconstitutional,  was  a  question  of  law  proper  for  the 
decision  of  the  judicial  department  of  (lie  government;  and  he  thought  it  strange 
that  the  Legislature  should  now  be  called  upon  to  make  this  judicial  decision  by  those 
who  complained  of  the  act  of  1814,  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  a  judicial  act  which 
the  Legiilature  ought  not  to  have  performed. 


7 


were  misunderstood  in  consequence  of  the  improper  manner  in  which 
they  were  presented. 

This  is  a  very  grave  accusation,  and  ought  to  be  sustained  by  proofs 
the  most  incontrovertible. 

The  misrepresentation — the  deception,  consists,  according  to  Mr. 
Clark's  report,  in  the  applicants  for  the  act  of  1814,  omitting  to  refer  in 
terms  and  distinctly  to  the  colonial  act  of  1704,  as  the  charter,  and  the  only 
subsisting  charter  of  Trinity  church  ;  or  as  stated  at  p.  16,  that  the  act 
of  1704  was  ^'■virtually  suppressed,''''  that  it  was  not  referred  to  in  the 
petition  of  Trinity  church,  nor  in  the  pamphlets  of  Bishop  Hobart  or 
Col.  Troup,  except  that  it  was  mentioned  in  a  note,  in  the  latter;  and 
tnat  the  Legislature  were  induced  to  suppose  that  it  had  been  repealed, 
and  that  the  charter  of  1697  was  operative  until  the  act  of  1784. 

Each  of  those  positions  will  be  briefly  examined  in  its  order. 

1st.  As  to  the  fact,  what  representations  were  made,  and  what  evi- 
dence is  there  that  the  Legislature  knew  of  the  colonial  act  of  1704? 

The  petition  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church,  embodied  in  their 
remonstrance  to  the  present  Legislature,  and  printed  at  p.  28  of  a 
pamphlet  containing  the  charter  and  other  laws  and  proceedings  relating 
to  Trinity  church,  (and  which  will  be  herein  referred  to  as  charter 
pamphlet,)  states  the  historical  facts  of  its  first  incorporation,  giving  the 
date  of  1697,  and  that  it  was  the  only  parish  church  until  some  time 
after  the  revolution;  it  then  recites  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1784,  and 
quotes  the  provision  it  contains  descriptive  of  the  corporators.  It 
then  states  that  other  Episcopal  churches  have  been  organized,  and  that 
some  individuals  belonging  to  such  separate  congregations  have  claimed 
a  right  to  vote  for  wardens  and  vestrj-men  of  Trinity  church.  It  further 
represents  that  their  corporate  name  has  thus  become  inapplicable — it 
asks  for  an  act  altering  the  name,  and  to  settle  and  obviate  the  ques- 
tions that  might  arise  in  consequence  of  other  Episcopal  congregations 
in  New-York  being  incorporated.  The  petition  is  brief,  but  explicit, 
and  fairly  and  trnly  presents  the  evils  for  which  a  remedy  was  sought. 
It  will  be  seen  that  there  was  a  distinct  and  unequivocal  reference  to  the 
act  of  1784. 

The  law  passed  upon  this  petition  in  1814  contains  a  preamble  re- 
citing the  act  of  1784  by  its  title  in  full ;  and  also  reciting  the  act  of 
10th  March,  1788,  enabling  the  corporation  to  take  a  different  name, 
and  which  name,  it  recites  they  pray  may  be  altered :  arui  it  makes 
alterations  in  both  those  acts. 

Here  then  is  indubitable  evidence  tliat  the  acts  of  1784  and  1788 


8 


were  before,  and  known  to,  the  Legislature  wliicli  passed  the  law  of 
1814. 

Now  the  act  of  1788  has  a  preamble,  reciling  the  colonial  act  of  27th 
June  1704,  and  stating  that  it  was  repealed  in  1784,  but  that  the  corpo- 
ration had  continued  to  use  the  name  therein  specified,  and  thereupon  it 
enacts  that  the  corporation  may  take  and  use  a  new  name. 

And  the  preamble  to  the  actof  1784  recites  the  charter  of  1697,  it  recites 
and  gives  in  full  the  title  of  the  colonial  act  of  1704,  it  declares  that  provi- 
sions in  both  the  charter  and  the  colonial  act  were  inconsistent  with  the 
spirit  and  letter  of  the  constitution  of  this  state,  and  the  act  amends  and 
alters  both  of  them.  Again,  the  preamble  to  the  sixth  section  recites  in  full 
the  title  of  the  colonial  act  of  1704,  with  the  date  of  its  passage,  and  in 
the  body  of  the  same  section  again  repeats  the  title  of  that  act,  and  re- 
peals it  absolutely. 

After  this  how  can  it  be  said  that  the  colonial  act  of  1704  was  un- 
known to  the  Legislature  of  1814,  that  it  was  virtually  suppressed  ?  It 
was  impossible  for  any  member  of  the  Legislature  to  vote  upon  the  bill 
understandingly  without  recurring  to  the  acts  of  1784  and  1788,  which 
it  professed  to  amend  and  alter.  And  he  could  not  look  at  those  acts 
without  seeing  that  the  colonial  act  of  1704  was  five  times  recited  or 
distinctly  referred  to.  If  this  be  a  mode  of  suppressing  a  fact,  it  would 
be  desirable  to  know  by  what  means  it  shall  be  made  known. 

But,  says  Mr.  Clark,  the  Legislature  was  misled  by  having  their 
attention  drawn  to  the  charter  of  1697  by  the  pamphlets  of  Bishop 
Hobart  and  Col.  Troup,  and  by  the  omission  of  those  pamphlets  to  re- 
fer to  the  colonial  act  of  1704.  It  must  have  escaped  Mr.  C's  observa- 
tion that  the  pamphlet  of  Col.  Troup  was  never  before  the  Legislature 
at  all,  previous  to  the  passage  of  the  bill  through  the  two  houses.  It 
was  written  and  published  after  Chancellor  Lansing  had  reported  his 
objections  to  the  bill,  to  the  council  of  revision — for  it  contains  those  ob- 
jections at  large,  and  its  object  was  to  answer  and  remove  them.  If, 
therefore,  it  misled  the  Legislature  in  the  passage  of  the  bill,  it  must 
have  been  by  some  singular  ex  post  facto  operation  of  which  there  is 
probably  no  other  instance  on  record. 

As  to  the  pamphlet  attributed  to  Bishop  Hobart,  an  examination  of  it 
will  show  that  he  discusses  the  question  solely  and  exclusively  as  it 
arose  upon  the  3d  section  of  the  act  of  1784,  and  upon  the  act  of  1788. 
There  is  not  one  single  idea  or  remark  founded  upon  the  charter  of  1697, 
and  indeed  that  charter  is  not  mentioned,  nor  is  there  any  allusion  to  it, 
except  that  in  the  commencement  of  tlie  pamphlet,  the  fact  is  stated  that 


9 


"since  the  year  of  our  Lord  1697  a  corporation  in  the  city  of  New-Yonc 
styled  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church,  have  enjoyed  a  charter,"  &c. 
The  idea  of  its  being  possible  for  Bishop  Hobart  to  make  an  attempt  to  mis- 
lead the  Legislature,  would  require  the  strongest  proof  to  satisfy  any  one 
acquainted  with  the  character  of  that  estimable  man ;  and  when  an  in- 
spection of  his  pamphlet  shows  how  utterly  destitute  of  foundation  such 
an  idea  is,  his  friends  and  the  friends  of  truth,  justice  and  fair  dealing, 
will  lament  that  it  should  have  been  so  inconsiderately  avowed. 

Before  dismissing  this  point  let  us  enquire  how  far  the  principle  itself 
is  tenable,  that  a  law  should  be  repealed,  because  the  applicants  for  it 
t<iok  a  wrong  view  of  their  case,  presented  facts  and  arguments  conform- 
able to  that  view,  made  no  mistatement  of  any  fact,  perverted  none,  but 
omitted  to  bring  into  view  a  law  on  the  public  statute  book,  which  they 
honestly  supposed  to  be  repealed,  and  which  law  must  necessarily  come 
under  the  examination  of  any  one  seeking  to  inform  himself  on  the 
subject?  Stripped  of  all  exaggeration  and  amplification,  this  is  really 
the  sum  and  substance  of  Mr.  Clark's  complaint,  assuming  the  correct- 
ness of  all  his  representations  on  the  subject.  And  the  mere  statement 
of  the  case,  would  seem  to  be  sufficient,  without  further  answer. 

The  analog)' which  Mr.  Clark  institutes  at  p.  23  between  acts  of  the  Le- 
gislature and  private  contracts  being  avoided  by  misrepresentation  or  con- 
cealment of  material  facts,  is  unfortunate  for  his  position.  As  to  misre- 
presentation of  diny  fact,  it  is  out  of  the  question;  it  is  not  pretended  that 
there  was  any;  the  onh' allegation  is  that  there  was  a  concealment  of  a  law. 
Chancellor  Kent  in  his  39th  lecture,  thus  states  the  principle:  "If  there 
be  an  intentional  concealment  or  suppression  of  material  facts  in  the 
making  of  a  contract,  in  cases  in  which  both  parties  have  not  equal 
access  to  the  means  of  information,  it  will  be  deemed  unfair  dealing  and 
will  vitiate  and  avoid  the  contract."  "As  a  general  rule,  each  party  is 
bound  to  communicate  to  the  other  his  knowledge  of  material  facts, 
provided  he  knows  the  other  to  be  ignorant  of  them,  and  they  be  not 
open  and  marked,  or  equally  within  the  reach  of  his  observation."  Even 
this  rule,  the  learned  chancellor  in  a  note  admits  to  be  too  broad,  and 
should  be  qualified  so  as  to  require  that  the  party  in  possession  of  facts, 
must  be  under  some  special  obligation,  ty  confidence  reposed,  or  other- 
wise, to  communicate  them  truly  and  fairly.  But  take  the  rule  in  its 
broadest  sense,  and  it  will  be  seen  how  decisive  it  is  against  the  position 
of  Mr.  Clark.  For  no  one  will  pretend  that  the  Legislature  "  had  not 
equal  access  to  the  means  of  information,"  with  the  applicants,  or  that  a 


2 


4 


10 


printed  and  published  statute  "was  not  equallj'  within  the  reach"  of  the 
Legislature  as  it  was  of  every  citizen. 

There  are  some  collateral  matters  under  this  head,  which  it  may  be 
well  to  notice,  ahhough  they  have  a  slight  bearing,  if  any,  upon  the 
point. 

At  p.  14,  it  is  remarked,  that  "it  is  evident  from  the  report  made  by  the 
Attorney-General  to  the  Assembly,  that  his  opinion  ws  founded  solely  on 
the  charter  of  1697  and  on  the  acts  of  1784  and  1788."  The  language  of 
the  Attorney-General  is  this :  "  that  he  has  examined  a  printed  copy  of 
the  charter  granted  in  1697  to  the  Rector,  &c.,  ani  the  acts  altering  the 
said  charter,  together  with  the  bill,  &c.,  and  that  he  is  of  opinion  that 
the  passage  of  the  said  bill  will  not  defeat  or  vary  any  existing  vested 
rights  under  the  said  charter  and  acts."  The  plain  inference  from  this 
language,  strengthened  by  the  reflection  that  no  honest  attorney-general 
would  give  an  opinion  upon  any  subject,  without  examining  all  the  laws 
bearing  on  it,  is  that  Mr.  Van  Vechten  looked  into  the  colonial  act  of 
1704,  as  well  as  the  acts  of  1784  and  1788. 

It  must  excite  some  surprise  to  witness  these  labored  efforts  to  show 
that  the  highly  respectable  applicants  for  the  law  of  1814  made  a  misre- 
presentation, by  a  very  foolish  and  necessarily  futile  attempt  to  conceal  a 
public  law, — that  the  Attorney-General  neglected  the  duty  of  investigat- 
ing the  matter  referred  to  him,  by  omitting  to  look  for  or  consider  a  law 
having  connection  with  that  matter,  and  to  stultify  the  whole  Legislature 
by  the  supposition  that  they  were  not  only  ignorant  of  a  law  now  said  to 
be  so  material,  but  that  they  were  hoodwinked  and  prevented  from  look- 
ing at  it,  by  the  omission  of  the  petitioners  to  quote  it  and  spread  it  be- 
fore them. 

2.  If  the  applicants  presented  their  case  to  the  Legislature  of  1813, 
under  the  belief  that  the  colonial  act  of  1704  was  not  in  existence, — that 
it  had  been  repealed  and  had  no  influence  upon  the  existing  rights  of 
the  corporation,  and  if  the  Legislature  acted  under  the  same  impres- 
sion,— they  were  correct  in  law  and  in  fact ;  and  the  representation  was 
true,  and  the  arguments,  if  any,  founded  upon  it,  were  just  and  sound  ; 
in  other  words,  assuming  all  that  is  alleged  by  Mr.  Clark,  to  have  been 
represented  to  the  Legislature,  there  was  no  misrepresentation — no 
deception.  Aware  that  the  settlement  of  this  question  of  fact  must  dis- 
pose of  the  first  reason  given  by  him  for  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814, 
Mr.  Clark  labors  with  great  ingenuity  to  establish  the  position  that  the 
colonial  act  of  1704  was  not  wholly  repealed  by  the  act  of  1784.  Let  us 
take  his  own  statement  of  the  law :  "The  6th  section  of  that  law"  (of  1784,) 
he  says,  at  p.  84,  "  enumerates  the  colonial  act  of  1704  in  the  list  of  those 


11 


that  It  expressly  repeals,  and  this  repeal,  looking  merely  at  the  words 
there  used,  is  absolute  and  total."  One  would  suppose  that  after  such 
an  admission,  the  question  would  be  at  rest.  But  the  report  under  con- 
sideration is  remarkable  for  the  alacrity  with  which  the  most  obsti- 
nate facts  and  the  clearest  provisions  of  law,  are  combatted  and  wrestled 
with.  In  this  instance,  it  is  said  that  this  absolute  and  total  repeal  is  to  be 
restrained  by  what  is  assumed  to  be  the  manifest  intention  of  the  Legisla- 
ture to  repeal  only  such  parts  as  were  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of 
the  constitution  ;  and  as  some  of  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1704  were  not 
of  that  character,  a  court  of  law  would  hold  that  they  were  not  included  in 
that  repeal.  If  courts  of  law  adhere  to  what  they  have  already  said,  they 
will  hold  a  very  different  language.  The  fundamental  maxim  quoted  by 
Chancellor  Kent  in  his  20th  lecture,  seems  peculiarly  adapted  to  this  case  : 
Quoties  in  verbis  nulla  est  ambiguitas.,  ibi  nulla  cxpositio  contra  verba 
cxpressa,  ficnda  est.  Co.  Lilt.  147.  Wing.  24;  thus  translated  in  Branch's 
Principia:  When  in  the  words  there  is  no  ambiguitij,  7W  exposition  con- 
trary to  the  ivords  is  to  be  made.  The  judges  said  in  Edrick's  case,  (5 
Rep.  118,  b,)  "  that  they  ought  not  to  make  any  construction  agains' 
the  express  letter  of  the  statute  ;  for  nothing  can  so  express  the  meaning 
of  the  makers  of  the  act,  as  their  own  direct  words."  In  1  Term  Rep. 
51,  Justice  Ashurst  says,  "  it  is  safer  to  adopt  what  the  Legislature  have 
actually  said,  than  to  suppose  what  they  meant  to  say."  These  authorities 
might  be  multiplied  almost  indefinitely  to  show  that  interpretation  ac- 
cording to  a  supposed  intent,  is  not  to  be  indulged  against  the  plain 
words  of  a  statute,  and  that  it  is  only  when  the  words  are  in  themselves 
ambiguous,  or  where  they  would  produce  manifest  injustice,  or  be  ab- 
surd, that  it  is  allowable  to  examine  the  intent. 

A  further  reason  given  by  Mr.  Clark  for  denying  that  the  colonial  act 
of  1704  was  repealed  by  the  act  of  1784,  is  that  the  latter  act  would 
thereby  be  rendered  contradictory  in  its  various  provisions.  The  first 
section,  after  repealing  certain  parts  of  the  charter  of  1697,  and  of  the 
colonial  act  of  1704,  declares  that  "  nothing  in  this  law  shall  be  in  any 
wise  construed  to  annul,  injure,  repeal  or  make  void  the  said  charter  or 
the  said  law,  where  the  same  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  constitution 
of  this  State."  And  yet,  it  is  admitted  by  Mr.  Clark  that  in  a  subse- 
quent section,  the  6th,  the  colonial  act  of  1704  is  repealed  by  words  that 
are  "  absolute  and  total,"  and  that  the  repeal  is  "  entire  and  absolute  in 
its  terms."*    To  prevent  this  manifest  contradiction,  which  however 

•  If  it  were  at  all  necessary  to  account  for  this  contradiction  in  the  act  of  1784,  it 
might  be  done  by  reference  to  the  Assembly  Journals  of  that  year,  p.  47,  where  it  ap- 
pears that  the  bill  was  amended  in  committee  of  the  whole  of  that  house;  and  by  re- 


12 


is  beyond  the  power  of  human  ingenuity,  he  would  restrict  the  "  absolute 
terms,"  and  make  that  a  '^partial"  repeal  which  he  admits  to  be  entire. 
Uut  a  contradiction  in  a  statute  is  a  much  less  evil,  than  a  defiance  of 
the  expressed,  explicit  and  undenied  will  of  the  Legislature;  and  the 
rule  in  such  cases  has'  been  settled  for  centuries,  and  adhered  to  with- 
out ever  being  questioned  by  any  judicial  decision.  That  rule  was  given 
in  the  case  of  the  Attorney-General  vs.  The  Governor  and  Company  of 
Chelsea  Water-works,  reported  in  Fitzgibbon,  p.  195 ;  it  is  that  a  proviso 
directly  repugnant  to  the  body  or  provision  of  the  act,  shall  stand,  and 
be  held  to  be  a  repeal  of  the  preceding  enactment,  by  analogy  to  the 
well  known  rule  of  construction  applicable  to  testamentary  instruments — 
that  a  later  clause,  if  inconsistent  with  a  former  one,  expresses  the  last 
intention,  and  revokes  the  preceding  expressions.  The  rule  as  quoted 
from  Fitzgibbon  is  given  in  Bacon's  Abridgement,  title  Statute,  and  in  2 
Dwarris  Stat.  675,  as  the  undoubted  law.  In  the  case  of  the  King  vs. 
the  Justices  of  Middlesex ,  2  Barn,  and  Ad.  818,  Chief  Justice,  Lord 
Tenterden  quoted  and  referred  to  the  same  decision  in  Fitzgibbon  as  the 
existing  law,  and  he  applied  the  principle  that  the  latest  enactment 
speaks  the  last  ijitention  of  the  makers,  to  the  case  before  the  court, 
where  two  contradictory  acts  were  passed  in  the  same  session  of  parlia- 
ment, to  come  into  operation  on  the  same  day;  and  the  court  accordingly 
held  that  "the  act  which  last  received  the  royal  assent  must  have  the 
effect  of  repealing  the  other." 

The  same  principle  was  again  recognized  and  applied  by  the  English 
court  of  common  pleas,  as  late  as  1835,  in  the  case  of  Paget,  and 
another  vs.  Foley,  reported  in  2  Bingham's  New  Cases,  p.  679.  Hence 
it  will  be  seen  that  courts  do  not  regard  contradictions  in  the  same 
statute,  or  between  different  statutes,  as  any  reason  for  disregarding  the 
plain  words  of  an  act.  They  have  regarded  consistency  in  acts  as  much 
less  important  than  the  certainty  arising  from  a  firm  and  well  settled 
rule. 

ference  to  p.  117,  where  it  appears  that  the  bill  had  also  received  amendments  in  the 
Senate.  We  have  no  direct  evidence  of  the  nature  of  those  amendments,  but  there 
are  strong  reasons  which  would  occupy  too  much  space  here,  for  believing  that  the 
6th  section  was  added  in  the  Senate,  without  adverting-  to  the  incongruity  of  a  total 
repeal  of  an  act  which  in  a  previous  section  had  been  repealed  in  part. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  three  of  the  acts  repealed  by  the  6th  section  of  the  act  so 
often  quoted,  chap.  33,  which  was  passed  17th  April,  1784,  were  also  repealed  by 
their  titles  in  full,  by  the  act  chap.  38,  which  was  passed  on  the  20th  of  April  1784, 
and  that  another  act,  apart  of  which  was  repealed  by  the  above  chap.  33  was  wholly 
repealed  by  chap.  38.  These  acts  were  pending  at  the  same  time,  as  appears  by  the 
Journal.  Thus  showing  that  it  was  not  deemed  extraordinary  to  repeal  wholly  an  act 
that  was  already  partially  repealed,  or  to  repeat  the  repeal  of  other  acts. 


It  is  not  deemed  necessary  to  add  any  thing  to  this  authorative  rule. 
It  speaks  for  itself,  and  shows,  it  is  believed,  beyond  the  reach  of  dis- 
pute, that  the  colonial  act  of  1704  was  repealed  absolutely,  by  the  act 
of  1784,  notwithstanding  the  declaration  in  a  previous  part  of  the  same 
statute.  Still,  it  maj-  be  proper  to  refer  to  the  act  of  1788,  which  re- 
cites explicity  that  the  colonial  act  of  1704  was  repealed  by  the  law  of 
1784.  As  the  almost  contemporar}-  opinion  of  a  whole  Legislature,  it  is 
entitled  to  at  least  as  much  respect  as  that  of  a  single  Senator,  given 
sixty  years  afterwards. 

Of  course  if  any  representation  was  made  to  the  Legislature  of  1813, 
that  the  colonial  act  of  1704  was  repealed — such  representation  was  true, 
and  any  inferences  which  were  drawn  from  the  fact  were  fully  justified. 

And  thus,  it  would  seem  certain  that  the  first  reason  assigned  by  Mr 
Clark  for  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814,  that  it  was  procured  under  a 
misrepresentation,  or  a  "  suppression  "  of  the  colonial  act  of  1704,  falls 
to  the  ground. 

Mr.  Clark  contends  (p.  7  and  8)  that  the  charter  of  Trinity  church, 
whether  it  consisted  of  the  letters  patent  issued  in  1697,  or  of  the  colo- 
nial act  of  1704,  became  extinct  by  the  revolution,  and  that  the  act  of 
1784  was  necessary  "to  reanimate  a  lifeless  corporation."  The  point 
has  so  little  practical  bearing  on  the  questions  at  issue,  as  scarcely  to 
justify  an  extended  discussion,  and  yet  the  position  is  deemed  so  unsound 
that  it  ought  not  to  pass  without  comment.  The  Supreme  Court  of 
this  State  and  that  of  the  United  States,  have  by  a  series  of  decisions 
established  beyond  all  controversy,  that  the  division  of  an  empire  does 
not  in  any  manner  impair  or  affect  private  or  corporate  rights ;  that  our 
revolution  left  the  corporations  created  under  British  authority  in  full 
vigor  and  possessed  of  all  the  franchises  which  could  be  enjoyed  con- 
sistently w^ith  our  forms  of  government.  Terret  vs.  Tayler,  9  Cranch43, 50, 
was  a  decision  to  that  effect,  relating  particularly  to  Episcopal  churches 
in  Virginia;  and  the  Society  for  propagating  the  gospel  vs.  New  Haven, 
in  8  Wheaton  481,  as  well  as  Dartmouth  College  vs.  Woodwai'd,  4 
Wheaton,  706,  were  repetitions  of  the  same  doctrine  applied  to  other 
corporations.  See  also  1  John.  Cases,  29,  32 ;  3d  do.  109.  The  idea 
broached  by  Mr.  Clark,  that  it  was  a  condition  of  the  charter  of  Trinity 
Church  that  the  corporators  should  remain  in  the  communion  of  the 
church  of  England  as  established  and  governed  by  the  laws  of  England, 
is  believed  to  be  a  mere  assumption  without  any  foundation  other  than  a 
vivid  fancy.  It  might  be  said  with  far  greater  plausibility,  that  the 
political  charters  of  the  cities  of  New-York  and  Albany,  were  subject 
to  the  condition  of  being  under  the  goveroment  of  Great  Britain. 


14 


Trinity  Church  was  a  religious  corporation;  the  religious  denomination 
of  its  corporators  was  described,  not  prescribed,  as  being  in  communion 
of  the  church  of  England  as  by  law  established.  This  was  a  commu- 
nion of  faith,  doctrine  and  worship,  exclusively  religious,  and  without 
any  necessary  connexion  with  the  civil  government.  In  the  preface  to 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  the  American  Episcopal  church,  after 
speaking  of  the  alterations  that  had  been  made,  which  it  says  will  ap- 
pear, upon  a  comparison  with  the  book  of  Common  Prayer  of  the 
church  of  England,  proceeds  thus:  "In  which  it  will  also  appear  that 
this  church  is  far  from  intending  to  depart  from  the  church  of  England 
in  any  essential  point  of  doctrine,  discipline  or  worship ;  or  further  than 
local  circumstances  require."  This  communion  may  and  does  exist  be- 
tween citizens  and  subjects  of  different  countries,  without  the  least 
reference  to  their  respective  civil  governments ;  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Friends  or  Quakers  in  England  and  America  ;  Presbyterians  in  Scotland 
and  in  our  country  ;  Methodists  m  the  two  countries,  &c.,  &c. — and  it 
may  exist  even  when  the  respective  nations  are  at  war.  The  connexion 
of  the  Episcopal  church  in  England  with  the  civil  government  was  a 
mere  incident,  in  no  way  necessary  to  the  religious  character  or  com- 
munion of  the  church,  as  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  in  Scotland  the 
Episcopal  is  not  the  established  church,  and  yet  its  members  are  in  com- 
munion with  the  church  of  England,  and  the  latter  are  in  communion 
with  the  Scottish  church.  The  same  relations  exist  between  the  Epis- 
copal church  in  America  and  that  in  England;  our  ministers  preach  in 
their  churches ;  theirs  officiate  in  ours ;  the  members  of  both  reciprocally 
partake  of  the  communion  in  the  churches  of  both  nations — and  there 
never  has  been  an  interruption  of  that  communion  with  the  church  of 
England,  by  the  corporators  of  Trinity  church  from  1697  to  this  day. 
The  object  of  Mr.  Clark  in  the  remarks  which  have  just  been  quoted, 
was  to  exhibit  the  necessity  of  the  act  of  1784,  "to  reanimate,  as  he  terms 
it,  a  lifeless  corporation."  The  propriety  of  such  an  act  and  the  neces- 
sity of  some  of  its  provisions  are  admitted,  and  it  was  certainly  desirable, 
considering  the  circumstances  in  which  the  corporation  had  been  placed 
by  the  war  of  the  revolution  and  the  occupation  of  the  city  by  British 
troops,  that  the  now  independent  State  should,  by  a  legislative  act,  remove 
all  doubts,  settle  conflicting  claims,  and  enable  Trinity  Church  to 
execute  its  high  mission.  The  act  of  1784  was  passed  for  this  purpose. 
It  does  not  contain  any  terms  of  incorporation,  but  it  attains  the  object 
of  reviving  that  which  had  been  in  abeyance,  and  of  imparting  to  it 
new  vigor,  by  appointing  of  its  own  authority  a  set  of  wardens  and  ves- 
trymen, (sect.  4,)  by  declaring  who  should  thereafter  be  corporators,  (sect. 


15 


3,)  and  by  confirming  its  original  charter  after  am  ending  and  modifpng  it 
to  the  altered  circumstances.  (Sec.  land  2.)  This  revival,  recognition  and 
establishment  of  the  charter  of  1697  was  effected  by  the  fii-st  section  of  the 
act,  which,  after  reciting  that  charter  and  the  colonial  act  of  1704,  provides 
that  "  nothing  in  this  law,  and  no  non-user  or  mis-user,  &c.  shall  be  con- 
strued to  annul,  injure,  repeal,  or  make  void  the  said  cliarter,  or  the  said 
law,  &c.  where  the  same  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  constitution  of  this 
State."  Can  language  be  more  explicit  in  recognising  the  existence  of  the 
charter,  and  the  validity  of  all  its  provisions,  excepting  those  inconsistent 
with  the  constitution  of  this  State  ? 

How  needless  was  the  exception  if  the  other  provisions  were  invalid  ? 
Is  this  not  precisely  the  case  in  which  the  sound  and  venerated  maxim 
of  the  common  law  and  of  common  sense  applies  with  in'esistible  force  ? 
Exceptio  prohat  regulam  de  rehis  imn  exceptis;  11  Co.,  41.  An  excep- 
tion proves  the  rule  in  things  not  excepted. 

If  then,  the  position  of  Mr.  Clark  at  p.  5,  be  correct  that  it  was  indis- 
pensable to  enable  Trinity  Church  to  continue  a  living  and  active  corpo- 
ration, that  an  act  of  the  Legislature  should  be  passed  designating  the 
corporators,  and  defining  the  mode  of  their  action ;  and  that  this  was  the 
object  of  the  act  of  1784,  it  will  be  seen  at  once  by  an  inspection  of 
that  act  that  it  wholly  fails  in  this  object  unless  it  be  coupled  with  the 
charter  of  1697,  or  the  colonial  law  of  1704  ;  for  the  act  itself  contains 
nothing  defining  the  mode  of  action  of  the  corporators  ;  it  confers  no 
corporate  powers  in  direct  terms ;  it  does  not  even  fix  the  number  of  ves- 
tr}Tnen,  nor  the  time  of  their  election,  nor  does  it  prescribe  any  of  their 
duties  or  powers.  But  it  couples  itself  with  the  charter  of  1697,  as  ahead)- 
explained,  corrects  its  defects  and  engrafts  its  own  provisions  upon  it,  and 
thus  sets  the  machinery  in  motion.  It  is  submitted  that  this  is  a  fair,  just 
and  reasonable  view  of  that  act,  and  the  only  one  which  renders  it  what  Mr. 
Clark  says  it  should  have  been  and  was  intended  to  be. 

In  a  note  to  his  report  at  p.  19,  Mr.  Clark  says  "  if  the  charter  of  1697 
were  superseded  or  abrogated  by  the  subsequent  act  of  the  Assembly, 
(the  colonial  law  of  1704,)  express  words  w^ere  palpably  necessary  to 
create  or  restore  its  validity.  The  mere  repeal  of  the  colonial  act  would 
not  have  that  effect."  It  is  utterly  denied  that  the  colonial  law  of  1704 
either  suspended  or  abrogated  the  charter  of  1697.  On  the  contrary  it 
is  maintained  that  it  did  not  create  anew  any  corporation.  It  contains  no 
expressions  of  that  character  usual  in  acts  of  incorporation ;  but  in  the 
Yery  first  section,  recognized  one  as  then  existing,  by  enacting  that  "  the 
rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  said  city  of  New- York  in  communion  of 
the  church  of  England,  as  by  law  established,  and  their  successors,  shall 


16 


be  capable  of  suing,  &:c.,  by  the  name  of  the  rector  and  inhahilants  of 
the  city  of  New-York,  i7i  communion  of  the  Church  of  Engla/id,  as  by 
law  established."  It  thus  describes  a  rector  as  already  existing,  which 
could  not  be  without  a  lawful  church,  of  which  there  could  be  a  rector. 
In  truth  it  describes  the  corporation  created  by  the  charter  of  1697, 
which,  it  is  therein  declared,  shall  be  a  body  corporate,  by  the  name  of 
"  the  rector  and  inhabitants  of  our  said  city  of  New- York,  in  communion  of 
our  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  now  established  by  our  laws."  It 
is  obvious  that  these  were  not  intended  as  the  very  words  of  the  name,  as 
the  phrases  "our  city  of  New-York,"  "'our  protestant  church,"  and  "estab- 
lished by  our  laws,"  could  not  be  used  with  propriety  in  any  instrument 
executed  by  the  corporation,  or  in  any  contract  with  it  by  any  other  party 
than  the  crown,  or  in  any  act  by  a  third  party.  In  such  cases,  the  word 
"our"  must  necessarily  be  omitted,  and  the  word  "  the"  substituted. 
With  that  change,  which  was  obviously  proper  in  an  act  of  the  colonial 
legislature,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  name  recited  in  the  commencement 
of  the  first  section  of  the  colonial  act  of  1704,  is  identical  with  that  by 
which  the  corporation  is  described  in  the  charter,  with  the  exception  of 
the  word  "  protestant,"  which  was  a  pleonasm,  as  the  church  of  England 
was  notoriously  protestant.  It  is  supposed  that  if  the  same  name  had  been 
used  in  a  grant  of  property  to  the  corporation,  or  in  a  contract  with  it,  no  one 
would  have  doubted  that  it  was  well  and  sufficiently  described.  "The  name 
of  a  corporation  frequently  consists  of  several  words,  and  the  transposition, 
interpolation,  omission  or  alteration  of  some  of  them,  may  make  no  es- 
sential difference  in  their  sense."  1  Kyd,  227.  In  Angel  and  Ames  on 
Corporations,  p.  55,  a  variety  of  cases  are  collected,  showing  the  settled 
law  that  any  such  omissions  or  alterations  are  regarded  as  immaterial. 
If  to  these  considerations  be  added  the  established  rule  that  the  law 
does  not  favor  repeals  by  implication,  and  that  two  statutes  are  to  stand 
together  if  possible,  (9  Cowen,  437,)  it  will  be  a  very  fair  conclusion  that 
the  colonial  act  of  1704  did  not  supersede  or  abrogate  the  charier  of 
1697  any  further  than  as  their  provisions  were  inconsistent,  which  was 
the  case  in  a  very  few  and  not  important  particulars. 

But  Mr.  Clark, assuming  that  the  charter  was  already  abrogated  by  the 
colonial  act  of  1704,  says  that  "  express  words  were  palpably  necessary  to 
create  or  restore  its  validity.  The  mere  repeal  of  the  colonial  act  would 
not  have  that  effect."  To  this  it  is  replied  that  there  is  no  doctrine  bet- 
ter settled  by  a  uniform  current  of  decisions,  and  by  the  acknowledgment 
of  all  the  elementary  writers  than  this,  which  is  thus  given  in  the  words 
of  Blackstone  :  "If  a  statute  that  repeals  another  is  itself  repealed 
afterwards,  the  first  statute  is  hereby  revived  without  any  formal  words 


17 


for  that  puipose."  1  Comm.  90.  If  the  rule  had  been  drawn  up  ex- 
pressly to  negative  Mr.  Clark's  position,  it  could  not  have  been  more 
direct.  In  7  Cowen,  536,  537,  the  rule  is  recognized  and  applied ;  and 
probably  hundreds  of  cases  might  be  cited  where  it  has  been  adopted 
and  enforced. 

It  may  be  expected  in  this  connexion,  that  some  remarks  should  be 
made  upon  the  observations  of  Mr.  Clark,  at  p.  5,  6,  &c.,  intended  to 
show  that  the  colonial  act  of  1704  was  regarded  by  the  government  and 
the  corporation  itself  as  the  only  law  which  governed  the  corporation 
previous  to  the  act  of  1784.  So  far  as  any  practical  results  could  follow 
from  the  admission,  it  might  with  perfect  safety  be  admitted.  For  it 
has  been  shown,  it  is  hoped  satisfactorily,  that  the  colonial  act  was  re- 
pealed in  1784,  and  if  the  charter  of  1697  had  been  overshadowed  by 
or  merged  in  it,  it  was  revived  and  restored  in  full  force  by  the  same  act 
of  1784.  It  therefore  becomes  quite  immaterial  to  enquire  how  it  was 
regarded  during  the  time  it  was  in  operation.  But  the  statements  of 
Mr.  Clark  upon  this  point  are  deemed  so  erroneous,  that  a  brief  space 
may  properly  be  devoted  to  their  correction.  It  is  said  at  p.  6,  that  the 
grant  made  in  1705  is  made  to  the  exact  corporate  name  that  the  act  of 
1704  imposed,  and  that  the  preamble  of  the  grant  refers  to  this  act  as 
the  sole  origin  of  the  corporate  power  of  the  corporation.  This  is  be- 
lieved to  be  an  exaggeration  of  the  language  of  the  preamble.  It  was 
natural  that  the  reference  should  be  to  the  more  recent  charter,  which 
had  passed  but  a  year  previous,  conferring  full  powers  to  take  and  hold 
real  estate ;  which  reference  was  sufficient  for  all  the  purposes  of  the 
recital,  and  it  would  have  been  mere  surplussage  to  refer  to  the  charter 
of  1697.  Surely  it  is  a  strained  inference  to  draw  from  the  mere  nam 
ing  of  one  out  of  two,  or  out  of  a  dozen,  acts  of  incorporation,  that  the 
others  were  obsolete  or  extinct;  and  as  to  the  name  of  the  corporation, 
it  has  already  been  shown  that  it  was  sufficiently  identical  in  the  two  in- 
struments, to  prevent  any  ambiguitj-. 

It  is  said  in  the  same  page  that  the  right  of  voting  for  wardens  and 
vestr}-men  of  Trinity  Church  was  limited  in  its  actual  exercise  to  the 
communicants  of  the  church.  And  then  it  is  averred  that  this  limitation 
is  to  be  found  only  in  the  act  of  1704.  Now  it  is  asserted  with  great 
confidence  that  the  limitation  of  the  electoral  right,  so  far  as  it  required 
the  voters  to  be  communicants  was  the  same  in  the  charter  of  1697,  and 
in  the  colonial  act  of  1704 ;  and  that  at  all  events  there  was  great  reason 
for  such  a  construction — which  would  of  itself  account  for  the  practice, 
and  be  sufficient  to  preclude  the  inference  attempted  to  be  drawn  from 
the  fact. 

3 


J8 


In  the  charter  of  1697,  (p.  9,  Charter  Pamphlet,)  the  qualifications  of 
voters  is  thus  described,  "  by  the  majority  of  the  inhabhants  of  the  said 
parish  in  communion  as  aforesaid  " — the  communion  thus  referred  to,  is 
described  in  an  antecedent  part  of  the  same  clause  as  that  of  "  our  pro- 
testant  church  of  England."  Mr.  Clark  says,  at  p.  6,  that  "  according 
to  the  well  known  doctrines  of  that  church,  its  communion  embraces  all 
its  members ;  in  other  words  all  belong-  to  the  communion  of  the  church 
who  have  been  baptized  or  confirmed  therein,  and  have  not  explicitly 
renounced  its  doctrines."  This  statement  is  far  from  being  correct.  By 
the  doctrines  of  that  church,  all  who  have  been  baptised  in  it  are  mem- 
bers of  the  church ;  but  it  is  not  essential  to  membership  that  they 
should  be  communicants.  Members,  hot  communicants,  are  not  de- 
scribed in  any  of  its  offices  or  by  its  accredited  writers,  as  being  in  com- 
munion with  it.  The  term  "  communion  "  in  a  religious  sense,  is  pe- 
culiar to  the  episcopal  church,  and  is  not  used  in  the  same  sense  in  the 
written  religious  devotions  or  services  of  any  other  denomination.  Its 
prayer  hook  denominates  as  the  "  holy  communion"  that  sacrament 
which  other  churches  call  "  the  Lord's  supper." 

This  word  "  communion  "  may  be  used  in  various  senses :  that  which 
is  intended  by  its  use  in  the  charter  and  in  the  colonial  act,  is  the  one 
very  accurately  given  by  Dr.  Webster,  "  the  act  of  communicating  the 
sacrament  of  the  eucharist ;  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper." 
This  will  appear  from  an  examination  of  different  parts  of  the  colonial 
act  of  1704.  The  3d  section  of  that  act,  (p.  18,  Charter  Pamphlet,) 
provides  that  the  right  of  presentation  to  the  rectorship,  shall  belong 
"  to  the  church  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  the  said  church,  annually 
elected  or  to  be  elected  by  the  inhabitants  aforesaid,  in  communion  as 
aforesaid.''  The  5th  section  declares  that  the  rector  and  inhabitants  in 
communion  as  aforesaid,  may  have  a  common  seal.  The  6th  section 
enacts  "  that  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  for  the  inhabitants  aforesaid,  (as 
yet  described  only  as  being  iri  communion)  to  assemble  and  meet  to- 
gether, &c.,  and  choose  wardens  and  vestrymen,  communicants  of  the 
said  church,  by  the  majority  of  the  voice  of  the  said  communicants  so 
met,  and  not  otherwise."  Here  the  word  "  communicants  "  is  for  the 
first  time  introduced,  and  is  applied  to  inhabitants  in  communion  assem- 
bled and  met  together.  A  subsequent  part  of  the  same  6th  section  pro- 
vides as  follows  :  "  and  in  case  the  church  wardens  or  vestrymen,  or  any 
of  them,  happen  to  die  within  the  year,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  inhabi- 
tants aforesaid  in  communion  as  aforesaid,  at  any  time  upon  such  emer- 
gency to  meet  at  the  said  church,  upon  notice  given  by  the  rector  to  elect 
and  choose  others  so  qualified  as  aforesaid,  in  their  room,"  &c.  It  will 
scarcely  be  contended  by  any  one,  that  the  act  intended  to  prescribe  a 


19 


particular  qualification  for  electors  in  the  choice  of  vestrjTHen  at  the 
anmial  election,  and  a  different  one  for  the  choice  of  the  same  officers  at 
a  special  election  to  supply  vacancies.  A  view  of  all  these  sections  would 
induce  a  xery  satisfactory  conclusion  that  the  same  description  of  persons 
were  intended,  whether  described  as  "communicants"  or  as  being  "  in 
communion  "  with  the  church  of  England.  The  same  expression  in  the 
charter  of  1697,  being  "  in  communion  "  doubtless  referred  to  the  same 
description  of  persons.  The  view  which  Col.  Troup  takes  of  this  ques- 
tion in  his  pamphlet,  p.  31,  32,  is  evidence  at  least  of  the  construction  of 
intelligent  men  of  that  day.  "  The  language  of  the  charter  and  law, 
(colonial  law  of  1704,)  is  no  less  intelligible  than  its  meaning  is  clear, 
and  the  mind  that  could  doubt  whether  communicants  alone  are  entitled 
to  vote,  must  have  been  incurably  diseased  with  skepticism." 

Mr.  Clark  has  himself  furnished  the  means  of  presenting  a  very  satis- 
factory argument  why  the  Legislature  should  not  interpose  to  repeal  the 
act  of  1814,  even  if  it  were  founded  upon  misrepresentation  and  sup- 
jrcecion  of  fact.  He  refers,  at  p.  23,  24,  to  the  provisions  of  the  Re- 
vised Statutes,  authorizing  a  scire  facias  to  be  issued  against  any  corpo- 
ration for  the  purpose  of  vacating  and  annulling  any  act  creating,  &c., 
such  corporation,  "  on  the  ground  that  the  same  was  passed  upon  some 
fraudulent  suggestion  or  concealment  made  by  the  persons  incorporated 
by  such  act,  or  made  with  their  consent  or  knowledge."  [2d  Rev. 
Stat.,  p.  479,  §  13,  2d  edition.)  This  section  is  doubtless,  merely  in 
affirmance  of  the  common  law,  by  which  a  scire  facias  may  issue  out 
of  Chancery  to  repeal  any  patent.  Comyn^s  Dig.  Patent,  F,  6.  At 
all  events  the  power  of  the  Court  of  Chanceiy  over  the  subject 
cannot  be  denied.  5  Cruise's  Big.,  53,  55.  In  one  of  the  modes 
stated,  either  by  scire  facias  or  by  bill  in  chancery,  the  question 
of  misrepresentation,  of  suppression  of  facts,  can  be  tried  if  the 
Legislature  desire  it,  and  the  consequences  be  visited  upon  those  by 
whose  instrumentality  it  was  produced. 

If  then,  the  memorialists  are  convinced  by  Mr.  Clark's  remarks,  of 
the  evidence  of  such  an  extraordinary  fact,  that  the  Legislature  of  1813 
were  by  some  species  of  mesmerism,  or  other  unaccountable  influence, 
kept  in  profound  ignorance  of  a  law  on  the  printed  statute  book,  referred 
to  in  the  act  which  they  were  amending — a  fact  which,  it  is  presumed, 
the  memorialists  had  not  themselves  discovered  when  they  prepared  and 
presented  their  petitions  for  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814,  (for  those  peti- 
tions contain  no  allusion  whatever  to  it ;)  if  they  are  satisfied  of  this 
fact,  and  believe  that  it  ought  to  vitiate  the  legislation  which  was  predi- 
cated on  such  profound  ignorance  and  consummate  folly,  let  them  ask 


20 


the  Legislature  to  authorize  legal  proceedings  to  ascertain  it.  It  is  be- 
lieved that  they  will  meet  with  no  opposition  from  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  Church  or  their  friends. 

II.  The  second  reason  given  by  Mr.  Clark  for  a  repeal  of  the  act  of 
1814,  (p.  12,  24,  &c.,)  is  that  it  was  the  exercise  of  a  judicial  Tpowei,  un- 
warranted and  dangerous.  He  says,  "  it  is  admitted  that  if  it  altered 
the  existing  rights  of  the  corporators,  it  was  a  plain  violation  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,"  for  which  he  refers  in  a  Twte  to  the  pre- 
face to  the  re-print  of  remarks  on  Trinity  Church  bill,  by  Col.  Troup. 
Now  that  preface  has  been  examined  again  and  again,  with  the  utmost 
care,  and  no  such  admission,  nor  any  approaching  it,  can  be  found. 
Judge  Troup  had  contended  in  his  pamphlet  that  it  was  competent  to  the 
Legislature  to  alter  the  elective  franchise  in  corporations  without  advert- 
ing to  the  distinction  between  public  corporations,  employed  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  government,  and  private  eleemosynary  institutions. 
It  was  to  correct  this  omission  that  the  preface  in  question  called  attention 
to  this  distinction,  as  established  in  cases  decided  since  the  appearance  of 
the  pamphlet,  and  as  prohibiting  the  intervention  of  the  Legislature  in 
relation  to  private  corporations  without  their  consent.  The  only  question 
discussed  was  the  right  of  the  Legislature  to  interfere  against  the  will  of 
the  corporation,  for  that  is  the  only  case  to  which  the  constitutional  pro- 
hibition applies.  If  the  contract  be  modified  by  the  consent  of  the  con- 
tracting parties,  the  obligation  is  not  impaired — the  obligation  no  longer 
remains,  it  has  been  removed  by  the  parties.  This  is  a  principle  which 
seems  to  be  kept  entirely  out  of  sight  in  Mr.  Clark's  report.  He  no 
where  notices  the  all-important  fact  that  the  act  of  1814  was  passed  upon 
the  application  of  Trinity  Church  after  full  notice,  and  that  the  law  was 
assented  to  by  them.  Here,  then,  were  the  two  parties  to  the  original 
compact — the  Legislature  representing  the  sovereign  power  of  the  State, 
and  the  corporation,  whose  rights  were  to  be  effected,  concurring  in  an 
act  modifying  that  compact.  Although  this  view  was  most  distinctly  pre- 
sented in  a  pamphlet,  to  which  Mr.  Clark  has  referred  at  p.  18 ;  yet, 
has  he  strangely  overlooked  it,  and  has  discussed  the  whole  question  as 
if  the  act  of  1814  had  been  passed,  under  the  same  circumstances  as  that 
of  the  Legislature  of  New-Hampshire  in  relation  to  Dartmouth  College, 
against  the  will  and  consent  of  the  corporation. 

The  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  represented  to  the  Legislature  that 
in  the  progress  of  events,  a  new  state  of  things  had  arisen  for  which  the 
existing  compact  between  the  government  and  the  corporation  had  not 
provided,  or  that  the  provision,  if  any,  was  imperfect,  and  gave  occasion 
to  doubta  and  controversies.    That  state  of  things  was,  "that  distinct 


21 


corporations  had  been  formed,  each  having  its  own  peculiar  endowments 
and  places  of  worship,  with  rectors  and  other  officers  of  their  own  choice, 
totally  independent  of  any  control  or  interference  of  your  petitioners;" 
and  further,  "  that  individuals  belonging  to  such  separate  congregations, 
have  pretended  to  claim"  the  right  of  voting  in  the  elections  and  regula- 
ting the  afiairs  of  Trinity  Church.  They  therefore  pray  for  an  act  "  to 
alter  the  name  of  this  corporation,  and  also  to  obviate  and  settle  the 
questions  that  might  arise  in  consequence  of  incorporating  other  Episcopal 
congregations  in  the  city  of  New-York^  Let  it  be  observed  that  the 
petition  asked  for  no  law  that  could  affect  any  other  Episcopalians  than 
those  who  belonged  to  such  separate  corporations,  and  the  question  and 
the  only  question  upon  that  point,  on  which  legislative  interposition  was 
asked,  related  to  the  individuals  belonging  to  the  other  corporations.  And 
such  as  will  be  shown  presently,  was  the  only  effect  of  the  law  of  1814, 
and  that  it  left  other  Episcopalians  precisely  where  they  were  before  the 
passage  of  the  act. 

Now,  with  what  propriety  can  it  be  said  that  an  act  passed  for  such  a 
purpose,  to  obviate  and  settle  questions  arising  out  of  an  imperfect  previ- 
ous act  of  the  Legislature,  was  not  legislative  and  was  judicial?  It  was 
an  amendment  of  a  legislative  act  in  particulars,  which  subsequent  cir- 
cumstances had  rendered  ineffectual.  It  is  the  province  of  all  sound 
legislation  to  protect  citizens  in  the  free  and  undisturbed  enjoj-ment  of 
their  rights  whether  natural  or  acquired.  There  was  an  evil  threatening 
the  peace  and  prosperity  of  a  respectable  body  of  citizens  having  corpo- 
rate rights.  That  body,  by  its  legitimate  representatives,  proposed  a 
modification  of  the  compact  to  the  other  contracting  party,  which  was 
assented  to  and  adopted.  Is  this  the  manner  in  which  courts  of  justice 
proceed  ? 

The  ver\'  act  of  1784,  which  it  was  asked  to  amend,  had  been  passed 
in  the  same  way.    Can  it  be  said  that  that  act  was  judicial? 

An  act  to  remove  doubts  respecting  the  charter  rights  of  the  ministers, 
elders  and  deacons  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  of  the  city  of  New- 
York  was  passed  in  the  same  year,  which  confirmed  elections  and  appoint- 
ments, notwithstanding  their  want  of  conformity  to  the  charter,  and  which 
abrogated  an  important  power  of  assessing  upon  the  members  of  the  church , 
the  expenses  of  maintaining  its  ministers  and  officers,  and  repairing  it, 
&c. 

Numerous  acts  of  a  similar  character  are  found  in  the  laws  of  almost 
every  session  since  the  organization  of  the  government.  Charters  of 
every  description,  charitable,  religious,  banking,  insurance,  librar}',  manu- 
facturing— have  been,  from  time  to  time,  amended  to  explain  or  correct 


22 


ambiguities  or  errors;  to  enlarge,  to  modify,  and  to  diminish  the  corporate 
powers  in  matters  affecting  the  interests  of  stockholders ;  upon  the  applica- 
tion of  the  trustees,  directors  or  other  official  representatives  of  such  corpora- 
tions. They  more  or  less  give  construction  to  previous  acts,  and  generally 
supply  their  deficiencies.  Was  the  power  thus  exercised  judicial,  or 
was  it  legislative  ?  A  distinguishing  feature  of  a  judicial  act  is,  that  it 
declares  what  the  law  has  been  and  is,  while  a  legislative  act  operates 
prospectively  and  declares  what  the  law  shall  be.  The  judicial  act 
affects  cases  of  the  like  nature  which  have  already  occurred  and  declares 
the  law  by  which  they  are  to  be  governed. 

Of  the  same  general  character  are  the  statutes  to  be  found  in  our  ses- 
sion laws  so  profusely,  confirming  official  acts  of  justices  and  other  officers, 
irregularly  elected,  or  qualified,  and  acts  confirmmg  titles  of  heirs  and 
widows  or  of  purchasers  from  them. 

In  the  cases  of  corporations,  the  contract  is  made  between  the  govern- 
ment and  the  body  corporate,  in  its  corporate  charter,  and  not  with  its 
individual  members.  They  are  not  known  individually;  they  are  merged 
in  the  body  politic,  and  are  represented  by  its  officers,  and  necessarily 
bound  by  their  acts.  The  very  principle  of  their  organization  is,  that 
the  majority  control  and  regulate  the  body;  and  the  officers  chosen  by 
the  majority,  are  its  agents. 

In  the  Bank  of  Augusta  vs.  Earle,  13  Peters  587,  Ch.  J.  Taney  giv- 
ing the  opinion  of  the  court,  says,  "  Whenever  a  corporation  makes  a  con- 
tract it  is  the  contract  of  the  legal  entity ;  of  the  artificial  being  created 
by  the  charter;  and  not  the  contract  of  the  individual  members." 

Mr.  Willcock  in  his  treatise  on  corporations,  p.  202,  says,  "  The  cases 
which  have  been  determined  on  the  presumption  that  the  right  of  elec- 
tion may  be  restricted  by  a  new  charter,  are  so  numerous  that  the  ques- 
tion seems  to  be  no  longer  controvertible." 

In  the  case  of  The  Lincoln  and  Ken.  Bank  vs.  Richardson,  1  Green- 
leaf's  Rep.  79,  it  was  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Maine,  that  the 
stockholders  of  a  bank  are  bound  by  every  act  which  amounts  to  an 
acceptance  of  the  terms  of  the  charter,  on  the  part  of  the  directors. 

Upon  no  other  prmciple  than  this,  that  those  representing  a  corporation 
by  virtue  of  their  election,  may  assent  to  modifications  of  the  charter,  in 
good  faith,  can  any  one  justify  the  numerous  laws  to  be  found  extending 
acts  of  incorporation,  enlarging  or  diminishing  the  capitals  originally  au- 
thorized, and  in  a  variety  of  ways  affecting  the  interests  of  individual 
stockholders.  To  deny  the  principle,  would  be  to  sweep  from  the  statute 
books  a  large  portion  of  the.  laws  they  contain. 

As  acts  of  incorporation  of  private  eleemosynary  institutions,  are  ad- 
mitted on  all  hands  to  be  contracts  between  the  government  and  the  cor- 


23 


poration,  they  are  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  which  forbids  any  State  from  impairing  the  obligation  of 
contracts.  The  effect  of  this,  is  to  create  an  entire  dissimilarity  between 
charters  granted  by  the  British  parliament  and  those  given  by  our  State 
Legislatures,  in  respect  to  the  power  of  repeal  or  modification.  "While 
the  parliament  by  its  constitution  has  such  power,  the  King  does  not  pos- 
sess it,  without  the  assent  of  the  corporation.  Says  Justice  Story  in 
Dartmouth  College  vs.  Woodward,  4  Wheaton,  p.  675;  "When  a  pri- 
vate eleemosynary  corporation  is  thus  created  by  the  charter  of  the  crown 
it  is  subject  to  no  other  control  on  the  part  of  the  crown,  than  what  is 
expressly  or  implicitly  reserved  by  the  charter  itself.  Unless  a  power  be 
reserved  for  this  purpose,  the  crown  can  not  by  virtue  of  its  prerogative, 
withmct  the  consent  of  the  corporation,  alter  or  amend  the  charter,  or  di- 
vest the  corporation  of  any  of  its  franchises,  or  add  to  them,  or  add  or 
diminish  the  number  of  the  trustees,  or  remove  any  of  the  members,  or 
change  or  control  the  administration  of  the  charity,  or  compel  the  corpo- 
ration to  receive  a  new  charter.  This  is  the  uniform  language  of  the 
authorities,  and  forms  one  of  the  most  stubborn  and  well  settled  doctrines 
of  the  common  law." 

It  is  submitted  that  this  is  a  full  and  accurate  description  of  the  limita- 
tions of  the  power  of  our  State  Legislatures  under  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  that  whatever  may  be  predicated  of  the  power  of  the 
crown  in  reference  to  the  corporations  created  by  it,  may  be  of  the  State 
Legislatures.  Now,  in  the  case  of  the  King  vs.  Miller,  in  6th  Term 
Rep.  276,  Lord  Kenyon,  giving  the  opinion  of  the  King's  bench  says, 
"Where  a  corporation  takes  its  rise  from  the  King's  charter,  the  King  by 
granting  and  the  corporation  by  accepting  another  charter,  may  alter  it, 
because  it  is  done  with  the  consent  of  all  the  parties  who  are  competent 
to  consent  to  the  alteration."  This  consent  may  be  given  by  the  corpo- 
rators, or  a  majority  of  them,  expresslj-  by  some  formal  act ;  or  it  may  be 
presumed  and  inferred  from  repeated  acts  under  the  alterations,  evincing 
their  acquiesence  and  sanction.  In  the  case  of  The  Bank  of  the  U.  S. 
vs.  Danbridge,  12  Wheaton,  70,  71,  the  judge  delivering  the  opinion  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  U.  S.,  says:  "In  short  we  think  the  acts  of 
artificial  persons  afford  the  same  presumptions,  as  the  acts  of  natural 
persons.  Each  affords  presumptions  from  acts  done,  of  what  must  have 
preceded  them,  as  matters  of  right,  or  matters  of  duty."  "  So  in  rela- 
tion to  the  question  of  the  acceptance  of  a  partictdar  charter  by  an  exist- 
ing corporation,  or  by  corporators  already  in  the  exercise  of  corporate 
functions,  the  acts  of  the  corporate  officers  are  admissible  evidence  from 
'  which  the  fact  of  acceptance  may  be  inferred.    It  is  not  indipensable  to 


24 


show  a  written  instrument  or  vote  of  acceptance  on  the  corporation  books. 
It  may  be  inferred  from  other  facts,  which  demonstrate  that  it  must  have 
been  accepted."  In  the  present  case,  the  acts  not  only  of  the  corporate 
officers,  but  of  the  corporators,  in  acquiescing  in  the  provisions  of  this 
act  of  1814,  and  in  a  uniform  course  of  electing  wardens  and  vestrymen 
according  to  those  provisions,  for  more  than  thirty  years,  afford  the  most 
satisfactory  and  conclusive  evidence  of  the  acceptance  of  that  act. 

In  most  cases  it  must  be  impracticable  to  obtain  the  previous  concurrence 
of  all  the  corporators,  to  any  modification  of  a  charter,  and  the  consequence 
of  requiring  it,  would  be  to  prevent  the  most  salutary  amendments,  benefi- 
cial to  the  corporators  themselves.  To  avoid  such  consequences,  the 
constant  practice  has  been  to  amend  and  modify  charters  upon  the  appli- 
cation of  the  officers  of  the  corporation,  in  the  first  instance  ;  and  these 
alterations  are  deemed  to  have  been  assented  to  by  the  whole  body  of 
corporators,  unless  objections  by  a  majority  of  them,  are  made  at  the 
time,  or  within  a  reasonable  period  afterwards. 

The  Legislature  has  repeatedly  acted  upon  this  principle,  in  requiring 
the  assent  of  the  corporation  under  its  corporate  seal,  to  alterations  in  its 
charter,  instead  of  requiring  any  expression  from  the  individual  corpora- 
tors ;  thus  recognizing  the  authority  of  the  corporation  by  its  officers,  to  give 
a  valid  and  binding  consent.  Thus  in  1829,  after  the  passage  of  the  act 
to  create  the  safety  fund,  some  thirty  bank  charters  were  renewed,  and  in 
all  the  acts  of  renewal  the  following  clause  is  found :  "  The  charter  of 
the  said  corporation  shall  not  be  extended  by  virtue  of  this  act  unless  the 
said  corporation  shall,  on  or  before  the  fourth  day  of  January  next, 
cause  to  be  filed  with  the  comptroller  of  this  State,  a  certificate  under  its 
corporate  seal  and  signed  by  its  president  and  cashier,  setting  forth  that 
the  said  corporation  assents  to  become  subject  to  all  the  provisions  of  this 
act."    Session  Laws  of  1829,  p.  465. 

The  act  of  1837,  suspending  certain  provisions  of  law  respecting 
banks,  and  containing  important  restrictions  upon  their  powers,  has  a  si- 
milar provision  in  sec.  8,  that  it  should  not  take  effect  in  relation  to  cer- 
tain banks  until  they  should  signify  their  assent  to  its  provisions,  by  an 
agreement  under  their  corporate  seals,  to  be  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State. 

Indeed,  so  far  as  the  legislation  of  this  State  bears  upon  the  question, 
there  has  been  one  uniform  invariable  course,  of  which  numerous 
instances  might  be  cited  like  those  already  given,  and  there  is  not  a  soli- 
tary case  to  be  found,  where  the  assent  of  individual  corporators  to  an 
alteration  of  the  charter,  has  been  required.  Surely  such  a  legislative 
construction,  not  questioned  by  any  and  acquiesced  in  by  all,  is  entitled 
to  great  respect  and  consideration. 


In  this  country  the  power  of  a  corporation  to  dissolve  itself  by  the  act 
of  a  majority,  seems  admitted  by  all  judges  who  have  spoken  on  the 
point ;  see  the  cases  collected  in  Angel  and  Ames  on  corporations,  p. 
507.  But  in  this  State  the  question  has  been  put  to  rest  by  a  legislative 
act.  The  3d  article  of  title  4,  chap.  8,  part  3  of  the  Rev.  Stat.,  (vol.  2, 
p.  [382,]  468,)  provides,  that  whenever  the  directors,  trustees,  or  other  offi- 
cers who  have  the  management  of  the  concerns  of  any  corporation,  or  a 
majority  of  them,  shall  for  any  reason  deem  it  beneficial  to  the  interests 
of  the  stockholders,  that  such  corporation  should  be  dissolved,  they  may 
apply  to  the  Chancellor  for  that  purpose,  who  is  authorized  on  such  appli- 
cation to  dissolve  it  accordingly.  This  law  was  originally  passed  in 
1817.  It  is  not  prospective,  but  in  terms  includes  existing  corporations. 
Thus  the  principle  is  most  distinctly  recognized  that  the  directors  and 
trustees  of  corporations  may  afiect  the  rights  and  interests  of  stockholders 
by  giving  up  their  charter  without  their  assent  to  the  particular  act,  or 
without  any  other  assent  than  what  is  implied  from  the  nature  of  corpo- 
rate organizations  and  from  the  election  of  directors.  It  is  true  the  Le- 
gislature did  not  think  proper  to  extend  this  particular  law  to  librar\'  socie- 
ties, to  religious  corporations,  or  to  select  schools  or  academies.  But  the 
act  proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  the  power  exists  in  all  corporations, 
and  regulates  its  exercise.  If  it  did  not  exist,  the  act  could  not  confer 
it,  especially  in  reference  to  corporations  then  in  being.  Indeed  this 
power  of  dissolution  by  surrender  seems  admitted  in  all  the  cases  which 
have  occurred  in  this  State.  She  vs.  B 7-00 m,  19  Joh?i.,  4.56.  Briggs  vs. 
Penniman,  1  Hopkins,  300 ;  8  Cowen,  387. 

An  extraordinarj-  remark  occurs  at  p.  26  of  Mr.  Clark's  report,  which 
certainly  must  have  been  made  without  due  reflection.  It  is,  that  the  act 
of  1814  was  passed  "  without  any  investigation  of  the  facts,  any  exami- 
nations of  the  law,  or  any  hearing  of  the  parties."  Now  it  appears  from 
the  extracts  from  the  proceedings  of  the  two  houses,  appended  to  the 
memorial,  and  to  which  Mr.  Clark  has  referred  in  another  part  of  his 
report,  that  a  remonstrance  against  the  bill  was  presented  to  the  Senate 
on  the  18th  of  March ;  that  it  was  discussed  in  committee  of  the  whole 
both  in  the  Senate  and  Assembly  ;  that  it  was  referred  to  the  Attorney- 
General  for  his  opinion  on  the  law  of  the  case  ;  that  it  was  again  debated 
in  the  Assembly,  when  a  motion  to  reject  it  was  negatived  by  a  vote  of 
66  to  23.  It  would  be  difficult  to  furnish  stronger  evidence  respecting 
any  statute  which  has  ever  passed  the  Legislature,  that  the  parties  were 
heard,  that  the  facts  were  investigated,  (indeed,  there  was  not  a  single 
fact  in  dispute,)  and  that  the  law  had  been  fully  and  thoroughly  ex- 
amined. 

4 


26 


III.  The  third  reason  given  by  Mr.  Chirk,  as  slated  at  p.  12,  for  recom- 
mending a  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814,  and  as  expanded  at  p.  29,  30,  &c.j 
is,  that  the  terms  of  that  act  dispense  with  certain  qualifications  of  the 
corporators,  that  were  deemed  essential  to  the  character  and  purity  of  Tri- 
nity Church,  and  may  change  the  location  and  character  of  the  corpora- 
tors. 

The  members  of  Trinity  Church  and  other  episcopalians,  will  probably 
be  astonished  to  learn  from  Mr.  Clark's  report  that  the  act  of  1814  "  aban- 
doned all  the  stcurities^^  for  preserving  the  religious  character  of  Trinity 
Church.*  One  of  these  securities  is  said  in  the  report  of  Mr.  Clark,  to 
have  been  found  in  the  7iame  given  to  the  corporation  by  the  act  of  1788, 
of  "  the  rector  and  mhabitants,  &c.,  in  communion  of  the  protestant 
episcopal  church  in  the  State  of  New-York."  A  name  would  be  but  a 
slight  and  feeble  security  against  a  church  abandoning  episcopal  doctrine 
and  worship,  when  its  members  had  renounced  them.  If  there  be  such 
virtue  in  a  name,  the  colonial  act  of  1704  must  come  under  condemna- 
tion. For  the  charter  of  1697  had  called  the  corporation  "  the  rector  and 
inhabitants,  &c.,  in  communion  of  our  protestant  church  of  England,  as 
now  established  by  our  laws  ;"  but  the  colonial  act  suppressed  the  word 
"  protestant,"  that  all-important  and  emphatic  word  which  has  found  such 
favor  in  Mr.  Clark's  report,  and  entirely  omitted  it  in  designating  the 
corporation. 

Another  "  security  "  for  the  character  and  purity  of  Trinity  Church, 
Mr.  C.  thinks  is  found  in  the  3d  section  of  the  act  of  1784,  which  de- 
scribes the  persons  who  shall  be  deemed  corporators,  as  those  "professing 
themselves  members  of  the  Episcopal  church."  This  security,  Mr.  C. 
says  (p.  29)  is  forfeited  by  its  not  being  required  in  the  act  of  1814. 
Mr.  Clark  would  not  venture  on  the  positive  assertion  that  this  qualifica- 
tion is  repealed  by  the  act  of  1814,  but  his  whole  argument  on  this  point 
is  founded  on  that  assumption.  There  is  nothing  in  the  act  of  1814  at 
all  inconsistent  with  the  qualification  in  the  act  of  1784,  requiring  the 
corporators  to  profess  themselves  members  of  the  Episcopal  church.  The 
well  settled  rules  of  construction  (which  will  be  more  fully  noticed  here- 


•  On  this  subject  as  well  as  in  reference  to  the  charge  af^ainst  the  committee  of  the  ves- 
try, who  procured  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814,  that  they  either  through  ignorance  or 
mistake,  omitted  to  inform  the  Legislature  that  the  act  of  1704  was  yet  (as  Mr.  Clark 
■apposes,)  a  valid,  existing  law,  it  may  be  proper  to  copy  from  the  printed  remonstrance 
the  names  of  the  gentlemen  who  were  members  of  it,  viz:  Richard  Harison,  David  M. 
Clarltson,  Thomas  Barrow,  Robert  Troup,  Jacob  Le  Roy,  Peter  Aug.  Jay  and  Thos. 
Ludlow  Ogden.  Not  a  few  of  the  memorialists  themselves  must  be  surprised  to  learn 
jhat  however  recreant  to  their  duty  the  others  might  have  been,  Mr.  Jay  could  have 
consented  to  accept  a  law  that  abandoned  all  the  securities  of  Protestantism. 


^1 


after)  require  that  all  statutes  on  the  same  subject  shall  be  considered  to- 
gether, and  full  effect  be  given  to  each  ;  and  the  application  of  them  to 
this  case  would  require  that  a  person  offering  himself  to  vote  under  the 
act  of  1814,  should  possess  all  the  qualifications  required  by  all  the  acts 
on  the  subject,  except  those  which  had  been  repealed. 

The  position  heretofore  advanced,  is  also  maintained,  that  the  phrase 
"  forming  part  of  the  same  religious  corporation  "  contained  in  the  act  of 
1814,  in  itself  prescribes  the  condition  that  the  persons  offering  to  vote 
shall  be  corporators  according  to  the  laws  then  in  force.  It  is  insisted 
with  entire  confidence,  that  the  expression  "forming  part  of  the  same 
religious  corporation "  applies  to  the  first  antecedent  in  the  same  2d 
section — "all  male  persons,"  and  not  to  "the  chapels  belonging  to 
the  same  " — on  account  of  the  manifest  absurdity  of  saying  that  a 
chapel  forms  a  part  of  a  corporation.  But  it  is  unnecessary  to  spend  time 
in  the  discussion  of  that  question,  because  the  position  already  established 
is  sufficient — that  the  provision  in  question  in  the  act  of  1784  is  not  repealed 
by  the  act  of  1814.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  this  view  will  relieve  Mr.  Clark, 
and  all  others  from  their  painful  apprehensions  arising  from  their  suppo- 
sition that  Trinity  Church  is  released  from  the  obligation  of  being  a  pro- 
testant  church.  Upon  the  principle  already  stated,  of  considering  all  the 
charters  and  laws  bearing  upon  the  subject,  and  giving  them  full  opera- 
tion, from  the  charter  of  1697  to  the  act  of  1814,  Trinity  Church  must 
not  only  remain  a  protestant  church,  but  must  continue  an  episcopal 
church,  in  communion  with  the  protestant  episcopal  church  in  the  State 
of  New-York  and  in  the  United  States ;  neither  the  corporation  nor  its 
members  can  renounce  the  authority  of  bishops  or  the  canons  or  mbrics  of 
the  church — nor  can  they  dispense  with  or  mutilate  the  prayers  and 
order  of  religious  worship  set  forth  in  the  book  of  Common  Prayer.  All 
the  securities  which  ever  existed  to  protect  the  corporation  and  its  mem- 
bers from  poperj'  on  the  one  hand  and  from  the  doctrines  and  forms  of 
worship  of  other  religious  denominations  on  the  other,  are  still  maintain- 
ed in  their  original  vigor  and  strength. 

It  is  hoped  that  it  may  be  permitted,  without  disrespect  to  the  senato- 
rial character,  to  express  deep  regret  that  an  official  public  document  like 
the  report  of  a  member  of  a  committee  of  one  branch  of  the  Legislature, 
should  contain  statements  and  intimations  in  relation  to  the  differences  on 
theological  questions,  knovro  to  exist  in  the  episcopal  church,  exceedingly 
offensive  to  a  portion  of  that  denomination,  and  which  as  thej^  have  no 
bearing  whatever  on  the  legal  or  constitutional  questions  involved,  are  in- 
troduced without  any  necessity  or  excuse.  Had  the  report  been  prepared 
by  one  of  the  heated  zealots  who  have  made  themselves  conspicuous  for 


28 


tlieir  intolerance  and  aiTogance — who  assume  the  very  infallibility  which 
they  deprecate,  and  seek  to  proscribe  their  brethren  for  an  adherence  to 
what  they  conscientiously  believe  to  be  the  true  and  sound  doctrines  of  their 
church  in  the  days  of  its  greatest  purity — had  the  report  been  prepared 
by  one,  who  in  a  whole  life  of  religious  controversy  had  evinced  any  thing 
but  charity,  it  could  not  have  contained  more  unjust,  or  more  intolerant 
reflections.  Our  Constitution  has  wisely  prohibited  all  discriminations  on 
account  of  religious  belief,  and  hitherto  our  Legislative  assemblies  have 
adhered  to  the  spirit  of  this  provision,  and  have  scrupulously  avoided  all 
discussions  of  such  topics  as  calculated  only  to  excite  intolerance,  disorder 
and  contention. 

It  is  believed  that  there  are  very  few  instances  in  which  legislative 
reports  have  been  of  a  different  character,  previous  to  that  under  consid- 
eration. The  same  Senator  did  indeed  indulge  himself  in  allusions  of  a 
similar  description  in  a  report  presented  by  him  to  the  Senate  in  1845,  in 
relation  to  changing  the  name  of  a  public  school  society. 

Trinity  Church  has  no  concern  witii  these  contentions,  and  as  her  rights 
are  in  no  way  connected  with  them,  they  should  not  be  made  dependent 
on  them.  The  corporation  has  taken  and  will  take  no  part  in  them. 
Individual  members  will  espouse  such  views  as  their  consciences  dictate, 
and  whether  they  be  right  or  wrong,  the  coi-porate  authorities  have  neither 
right  nor  pretension  to  enquire.  It  is  insisted  that  such  discussions 
are  improperly  mingled  with  the  matters  before  the  Legislature.  They 
divert  attention  from  the  true  merits  of  the  controversy,  and  substitute 
feeling  and  prejudice  for  judgment  and  discretion.  Their  introduction  is 
therefore  deprecated  as  improper  in  itself  and  unjust  to  the  corporation — 
and  to  those  who  are  assailed.  The  latter  are  entitled  under  our  blessed 
constitution  to  "  the  free  exercise  and  enjojinent  of  their  religious  pro- 
fession and  worship  without  discrimination,"  and  without  molestation 
from  any  source,  whether  they  belong  to  either  extreme  of  the  opposing 
parties,  or  are  between  the  two.  When  Trinity  Church  or  any  other 
corporation  diverts  the  funds  entrusted  to  its  care,  to  uses  and  purposes 
variant  from  the  intentions  of  the  donors  or  the  policy  of  the  State,  the 
judicial  tribunals  will  be  found  armed  with  abundant  powers  to  deprive 
the  offending  corporation  of  all  control  over  those  funds,  and  to  declare 
its  dissolution  for  any  abuse  of  its  franchises.  It  cannot  be  pretended 
that  the  repeal  or  the  continuance  of  the  act  of  1814,  would  either  pre- 
vent such  abuse,  or  add  to,  or  diminish,  the  powers  of  the  courts  to  correct 
it.  How  then  could  the  apprehension,  real  or  affected,  of  such  abuse,  in- 
fluence the  action  of  the  Legislature  upon  the  memorials  presented  to  it  ? 
Those  memorials  presented  no  such  ground  for  legislative  interposition. 


29 


And  it  may  be  supposed  without  questioning  the  astuteness  of  Mr.  Clark, 
that  those  who  prepared  the  memorials  and  the  accompam-ing  argument, 
were  at  least  as  well  acquainted  with  the  appropriate  grounds  on  which 
their  application  was  to  be  sustained,  as  he  could  be.  They  had  no  such 
apprehensions,  or  if  they  had,  they  considered  them  unfit  to  be  presented 
to  the  consideration  of  a  legislative  body. 

There  is  another  omission  in  the  act  of  1814,  which  Mr.  Clark's  report 
presents  as  a  reason  for  its  repeal,  and  which  he  considers  not  quite  so 
alarming  in  its  possible  consequences  as  that  last  mentioned,  and  this  is 
stated  at  p.  31,  to  be  the  omission  to  re-enact  in  the  description  of  the 
corporators,  that  they  must  be  inhabitants  of  the  citj-  of  New-York.  The 
report  says  that  this  limitation  is  retained  in  the  acts  of  1784  and  1788, 
but  is  not  found  in  the  act  of  1814.  The  answer  already  given  covers 
this  objection.  All  the  statutes  in  relation  to  Trinity  Church  are  to  be 
considered  and  construed  together,  being  in  pari  materia,  and  no  provi- 
sion in  one  is  repealed,  unless  by  express  words,  or  by  necessary  implica- 
tion in  consequence  of  its  repugnancy  to  a  subsequent  provision.*  It 
might  with  equal  proprietj'  be  said  that  the  wardens  and  vestrjTnen  had 
no  authority  to  choose  a  rector,  because  no  such  provision  is  found  in  the 
act  of  1814,  or  that  no  election  could  be  had,  because  neither  the  number 
of  wardens  and  vestr}Tnen  to  be  chosen,  nor  the  time  of  the  election,  were 
provided,  either  in  the  act  of  1784  or  in  that  of  1814.  These  acts  were 
supplements  to  those  previously  existing,  and  provided  for  the  special  cases 
for  which  they  were  intended. 


•These  principles  seem  so  entirely  to  have  escaped  Mr.  Clark's  recollection;  and 
the  whole  of  his  third  reason  for  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814,  being  founded  on  the 
misapprehension  that  the  provisions  of  the  charter  of  1697  and  of  the  act  of  1784,  are 
not  to  be  regarded  in  determining  the  qualifications  of  voters  uuder  the  act  of  1814, 
that  it  seems  advisable  to  quote  a  few  leading  authorities  on  the  subject.  In  bis  2Qth 
lecture,  Chancellor  Kent  says:  "Several  acts  iapari  materia  and  relating  to  the  same 
subject,  are  to  be  laken  together,  and  compared  in  the  construction  of  them,  because 
they  are  considered  as  having  one  object  in  view,  and  as  acting  upon  one  system ; 
and  the  rule  applies,  though  some  of  the  statutes  may  have  expired  or  are  not  referred 
to  in  the  other  acts." 

In  McCartee  vs.  Orphan  Asylum,  9  Cowen,  437,  it  was  held  by  the  court  for  the  Cor- 
rection of  Errors,  that  "  Two  statutes  shall  stand  together  and  both  have  effect,  if  pos- 
sible; for  the  law  does  not  favor  repeals  by  implication;  and  all  acts  in  pari  materia 
should  be  taken  together,  as  if  they  were  one  law."  1  Black.  Comm.  89,  90.  "And 
an  old  statute  gives  place  to  a  new  one.  But  this  is  to  be  understood  only  when  the 
latter  statute  is  couched  in  negative  terms,  or  where  its  matter  is  so  clearly  repugnant 
that  it  necessarily  implies  a  negative."  "  But  if  both  acts  be  merely  atErmative,  and 
the  substance  such  that  both  may  stand  together,  here  the  latter  does  not  repeal  the 
former,  but  they  shall  have  a  concurrent  efficacy." 


30 


The  act  of  1814  was  passed  to  obviate  and  settle  doubts  in  relation  to  a 

particular  qualification  of  persons  who  claimed  to  be  corporators  and 
electors,  and  it  left  all  other  qualifications  as  it  found  them,  with  the 
exception  of  dispensing  with  the  requisite  of  having  paid  for  the  support 
of  the  church. 

There  is  not  a  word  to  be  found  in  it  inconsistent  with  the  qualifications 
that  the  voters  should  be  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York,  and  that 
they  should  profess  themselves  members  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  If  these  were  qualifications  before  the  act,  they  remain  so  still. 
The  fundamental  error  of  the  report  has  been,  that  it  considered  the  2d 
section  of  the  act  of  1814  a  repeal  of  all  former  provisions  on  the  same 
subject;  whereas,  it  is  not  negative  but  affirmative  in  its  character,  and 
specifies  certain  qualifications,  which  those  claiming  to  vote,  should  pos- 
sess. It  dispenses  with  none  that  were  previously  required,  except  the 
single  one  before  mentioned,  of  paying  to  the  support  of  the  church.  It 
is  submitted  then,  that  Mr.  Clark's  third  reason  for  the  repeal  wholly  fails, 
because  the  fact  on  which  it  is  founded  does  not  exist. 

The  affirmative  provision  which  it  contains  requiring  voters  to  be  mem- 
bers of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  church  or  of  one  of  its  chapels,  may 
be  defended  and  justified  upon  general  grounds  without  reference  to  any 
previous  charter  or  law.  The  meaning  of  the  phrase  is  sufficiently 
given  in  Mr.  Clark's  report,  p.  17,  which  says,  "it  denotes  all  persons 
who  usually  assemble  for  public  worship  in  the  same  church."  Can  it  be 
supposed  that  any  church  of  any  denomination  could  be  maintained,  in 
which  the  trustees,  vestrymen,  rector,  and  other  officers  were  to  be  cho- 
sen or  appointed  by  any  others  than  those  who  "  usually  assemble  in  it 
for  public  worship,"  and  who  form  the  body  for  whose  use  the  society 
and  all  its  incidents  were  created  ?  Are  clergjTOen  in  our  churches  to 
be  called  by  persons  who  are  not  to  hear  them,  and  who  are  to  take  no 
part  m  the  services  of  the  sanctuary  where  they  are  to  officiate  ?  Are 
strangers,  though  belonging  to  the  same  general  denomination,  to  select 
preachers  for  congregations  to  which  they  do  not  belong?  Is  it  not  neces- 
sarily implied  from  the  very  nature  of  any  society  or  association,  that 
those  only  are  to  control  its  affairs  who  belong  to  it  ?  And  shall  a  con- 
gregation of  a  christian  church  be  the  only  exception  ?  It  is  affirmed 
with  entire  confidence,  that  in  the  absence  of  any  provision  on  the  sub- 
ject in  any  act  of  incorporation,  common  sense  and  common  justice  would 
prescribe  as  the  very  first  and  elementary  qualification  to  a  person's  exer- 
cising any  control  in  the  affairs  of  any  congregation,  that  he  should  be- 
long to  it,  and  be  a  member  of  it.  And  the  act  of  1814  therefore,  very 
properly  inserted  a  dcclaratioi)  to  that  effect,  that  the  members  of  other 


31 


congregations  might  not  presume  to  interfere  with  one  to  which  they  did 
not  belong.  And  this  was  the  sole  and  whole  effect  of  this  provision. 
It  is  not  correct,  as  intimated  at  p.  27  of  Mr.  Clark's  report,  that  "  all 
that  class  of  Episcopalians  in  the  city  of  New- York  who  are  not  members 
of  any  congregation  as  such  in  the  city,"  are  excluded  from  voting  by 
the  act  of  1814.  They  have  the  same  right  to  qualify  themselves  to  be 
voters  which  they  had  before  that  act ;  and  if  they  are  excluded  from 
voting,  it  is  because  they  do  not  choose  to  avail  themselves  of  the  right. 
It  might  with  equal  truth  be  affirmed  that  they  were  excluded  by  the  act 
of  1784,  which  required  them  to  hold  pews  or  be  communicants.  Any 
qualification  whatever  that  should  be  prescribed,  would  exclude  them 
until  they  complied  with  it.  They  are  excluded  by  the  act  of  1814  pre- 
cisely as  presbyterians,  methodists,  and  members  of  other  denominations 
are,  and  in  no  other  way,  namely :  so  long  as  they  refuse  to  participate 
in  the  privileges  offered  them,  by  refusing  to  become  members  of  the 
congregation.  It  is  the  result  of  their  own  choice — the  law  does  not 
exclude  them.  If  they  are  episcopalians,  they  have  but  to  become  mem- 
bers of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  Church,  "to  worship  usually"  in  that 
church  or  in  one  of  its  chapels,  and  they  at  once  become  corporators  and 
voters  upon  complying  with  the  other  conditions  prescribed  by  the  several 
acts.  But  from  episcopalians  who  do  not  belong  to  any  corporation,  no 
complaint  is  heard.  The  memorials  to  the  Legislature,  proceed  wholly 
from  those  who  belong  to  other  incorporated  episcopal  churches,  and  are 
members  of  the  congregations  of  those  churches.  These,  and  these 
only,  ask  that  all  the  guaranties  which  secure  to  the  members  of  the 
corporation  of  Trinity  church,  the  government  and  control  of  their  own 
affairs,  should  be  swept  away,  and  its  elections  thrown  open  to  an  indis- 
criminate multitude,  belonging  to  other  churches,  or  belonging  to  none, 
upon  no  other  qualification  than  that  they  are  inhabitants  of  New- 
York,  and  profess  to  belong  to  the  Episcopal  church.  This  is  in  truth 
the  result  which  all  their  representations  and  arguments  are  calculated  to 
produce. 

It  is  time  to  hasten  to  a  conclusion.  Mr.  Clark's  report  urges  the  repeal 
of  the  whole  act  of  1814  instead  of  the  particular  sections  complained  of 
by  the  memorialists.  The  third  section,  confirming  grants  made  by  the 
church,  the  report  considers  useless  if  such  grants  were  originally  valid ; 
and  if  they  were  not  valid,  that  then  the  Legislature  had  no  right  to  con- 
firm them.  The  best  answer  to  this  remark  is  furnished  by  the  second  sec- 
tion of  the  bill  which  Mr.  Clark  has  reported,  which  forbids  the  corporation 
from  disputing  the  validity  of  any  of  its  grants  4e/bre  or  since  the  passage 
of  the  act  of  1814,  by  which  it  would  have  been  bound  under  that  act  ; 


32 


which  is  but  a  circumlocutive  manner  of  declaring  thai  the  grants  shall 
be  valid  ;  thus  re-enacting  the  identical  provision  he  proposes  to  repeal. 
A  stronger  admission  of  the  propriety  of  the  third  section  of  the  act  of 
1814  could  not  be  made.  The  fourth  section  of  the  act  of  1814,  stands 
upon  the  same  ground,  being  only  more  particular  in  referring  specially 
to  the  grants  to  St.  George's  Church.  It  would  also  be  saved  by  the 
second  section  of  Mr.  Clark's  bill.  Would  it  not  have  been  more  simple 
and  direct  not  to  repeal  those  sections  at  all,  than  thus  to  repeal  and  then 
re-enact  them  ? 

The  5th  section  of  the  act  of  1814  authorizes  an  amicable  separation 
of  the  congregation  of  any  chapel  of  Trinity  Church,  by  the  consent  of 
the  congregation  and  the  corporation,  and  provides  that  when  such  agree- 
ment is  made  the  members  of  such  congregation  shall  cease  to  be 
members  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  and  may  incorporate 
themselves.  This  section  also,  Mr.  Clark  proposes  to  repeal.  He  would 
not  even  permit  persons  voluntarily  to  renounce  their  connexion  with  Trinity 
Church.  He  would  bind  them  perpetually  to  that  corporation.  He  says, 
"  each  of  these  sections,  (the  3d,  4th  and  5th,)  involves  a  plain  exercise 
of  judicial  power,  or  such  an  alteration  of  the  chartered  rights  of  Trinity 
Church,  as  it  was  not  within  the  competence  of  the  Legislature  to 
establish."  It  is  not  deemed  necessary  to  waste  a  word  on  this  idea  of  a 
prospective  judicial  power  in  authorizing  parties  to  make  future  arrange- 
ments respecting  the  partition  of  their  common  property.  And  as  to 
chartered  rights,  it  has  hitherto  been  supposed  that  when  an  act  is  au- 
thorized to  be  done,  upon  the  consent  of  all  persons  interested,  there 
could  be  no  question  raised  respecting  the  violation  of  the  rights  of  those 
parties.  At  p.  35  the  report  regards  these  sections  as  quite  useless,  and  says, 
that  the  validity  of  the  separations  by  mutual  consent  would  not  be  af- 
fected by  a  repeal  of  them.  But  that  is  a  small  part  of  the  question. 
Future  separations  will  be  as  necessary  hereafter  as  they  have  been  here- 
tofore ;  and  the  law  which  allows  them  in  a  peaceable,  orderly  and  regu- 
lar manner,  and  defines  with  precision  the  consequences,  is  in  itself  va- 
luable, and  can  not  be  repealed  without  mischievous  results. 

The  6lh  section  of  the  act  of  1814  is  a  general  provision  applicable  to 
religious  corporations  in  the  cities  of  New-York,  Albany  and  Schenec- 
tady, and  intended  to  exempt  them  from  a  very  unnecessary  and  vexa- 
tious burthen.  By  the  10th  section  of  the  general  act  for  religious  cor- 
porations (3d  Rev.  Stat.  p.  210)  the  treasurer  or  trustees  of  churches  in 
New-York,  Albany  or  Schenectady,  (and  it  is  not  required  of  churches  in 
any  other  place,)  are  required  once  in  every  three  years  to  exhibit  an  ac- 
count of  their  estate  to  the  chancellor  or  a  judge  of  the  supreme  court  or 


33 


of  the  county  courts,  and  in  case  of  omission  to  do  so,  the  corporation  is 
dissolved.  Now,  the  6th  section  of  the  act  of  1814  provides  that  this 
account  need  not  be  rendered  unless  the  church  has  acquired  other  lands 
subsequent  to  the  rendering  of  an  account.  Mj.  Clark  has  entirely  mis- 
conceived the  original  act  when  he  speaks  of  the  religious  societies  hav- 
ing been  required  by  it  to  make  an  annual  report  to  the  Legislature. 
There  was  no  such  provision.  The  judge  to  whom  the  account  was  de- 
livered, if  he  found  the  amount  of  the  estate  owned  by  a  church  greater 
than  that  allowed  by  law,  was  to  report  the  inventory  to  the  Legislature. 
It  is  evident  that  the  provision  of  the  act  of  1814  is  just  as  effectual  to 
secure  a  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  any  church  in  the  above  mentioned 
cities  has  exceeded  its  income,  as  the  original  law  ;  and  there  can  be  no 
reason  whatever  for  restoring  that  law.  Still,  if  it  is  deemed  necessary 
or  proper  to  do  so,  it  can  easily  be  done  by  a  separate  act. 

An  unwillingness  is  felt  to  close  these  remarks  without  adverting  to 
a  singular  omission  in  the  report  of  Mr.  Clark,  to  pay  the  least  attention 
to  the  argument  which  was  pressed  before  the  committee  by  those  who 
represented  Trinity  Church,  and  which  has  been  reiterated  on  various  oc- 
casions and  in  various  forms,  that  the  long  acquiescence  for  more  than 
thirty  years  in  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1814  by  those  immediately  and 
directly  affected,  is  in  itself  a  sufficient  reason  why  the  Legislature  should 
not  now  interpose,  and  by  an  act  of  at  least  doubtful  authority,  throw  open 
the  flood-gates  of  contention  and  litigation.  Why  Mr.  Clark  has  not 
thought  proper  to  discuss  this  point,  does  not  appear. 

A  brief  recapitulation  of  the  points  presented  in  these  remarks  will  be 
convenient  and  perhaps  useful. 

I.  Mr.  Clark  repudiates  and  rejects  the  grounds  presented  by  the  memo- 
rialists for  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814,  as  wholly  insufficient,  because  a 
repeal  on  those  grounds  would  be  a  judicial  act. 

II.  He  nevertheless  argues  that  the  act  was  unconstitutional  and  should 
be  repesded  in  order  to  remove  an  impediment  to  the  legal  assertion  of 
the  rights  of  the  complainants ;  and  in  effect  calls  upon  the  Legisla- 
ture to  act  judicially  in  determining  whether  those  rights  have  been  in- 
vaded. 

III.  He  pays  no  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  act  of  1814  was  passed 
with  the  assent  and  on  the  application  of  the  corporation  through  their 
legitimate  representatives ;  and  does  not  discriminate  between  the  power  of 
the  Legislature  to  modify  a  compact  with  the  consent  of  the  other  party, 
as  was  done  in  1814,  and  its  power  to  change  and  alter  the  compact  thus 
modified,  without  the  consent  and  against  the  remonstrance  of  the  other 
contracting  party. 

5 


34 


IV.  He  omits  all  notice  of  the  admitted  fact,  that  all  parties  interested 
in  the  matter  have  acquiesced  in  the  act  of  1814  for  more  than  thirty 
years. 

V.  He  assumes  grounds  for  recommending  the  repeal  of  that  act 
which  never  occurred  to  the  memorialists,  and  which  are  wholly  unfound- 
ed in  fact. 

VI.  The  first  reason  assigned  by  him  for  the  repeal,  that  the  act  of  1814 
was  procured  by  the  suppression  of  a  statute  printed  among  the  public 
laws,  and  by  misrepresenting  of  that  statute  as  being  repealed,  is  incon- 
sistent in  itself,  is  contradicted  by  the  facts,  and  could  not  be  true. 

VII.  If  any  representations  were  made,  and  if  the  act  of  1814 
was  passed  on  the  belief,  that  the  colonial  act  of  1704  was  repealed 
by  the  act  of  1784,  they  were  perfectly  true  and  accurate  in  all  re- 
spects. 

VIII.  The  second  reason  assigned  by  Mr.  Clark  for  the  repeal,  that 
the  act  of  1814  was  a  judicial  construction  and  determination  of  the 
rights  of  the  corporators,  is  unsound.  It  was  strictly  legislative,  partak- 
ing in  no  respect  of  the  character  of  a  judicial  decision ;  and  it  was  en- 
entirely  within  the  competence  of  the  Legislature,  in  order  to  cor- 
rect imperfections  and  defects  in  former  laws,  which  rendered  them  in- 
applicable to  a  new  state  of  things  that  had  arisen.  Such  acts, 
passed  with  the  consent  of  the  trustees  or  other  officers  representing  the 
corporation,  and  acquiesced  in  by  the  body  of  the  corporators,  are  coeval 
with  our  government,  and  a  denial  of  the  principle  at  this  day  would 
overturn  hundreds  of  statutes,  affect  vitally  most  important  rights  and 
interests,  and  produce  endless  and  intolerable  confusion. 

IX.  The  third  reason  given  by  Mr.  Clark  for  the  repeal  is,  that  the 
act  of  1814  "  dispeyises  with  "  qualifications  of  corporators,  essential  to 
the  preservation  of  the  character  and  purity  of  Trinity  Church,  and  may 
change  the  location  and  character  of  the  corporators ; — and  that  the 
change  in  the  name  of  the  corporation  also  exposes  it  to  lose  its  distinc- 
tive religious  character. 

1.  It  is  denied  that  a  change  of  name  can  have  any  such  effect,  when  the 
peculiar  character  of  the  corporation  is  indicated  by  the  provisions  of  its 
charter;  and  it  is  also  denied  that  a  single  qualification  of  corporators  that 
existed  before  the  act  of  1814  is  "  dispensed  with  "  by  that  act,  except 
the  single  one  of  paying  to  the  support  of  the  church  ;  but 

2.  On  the  contrary  it  is  maintained  upon  the  the  clearest  and  best  set- 
tled principles  of  law,  that  all  the  acts  and  charters  in  relation  to  Trinity 
Church  form  one  body  of  laws  upon  the  same  subject,  which  are  to  have 
full  effect  and  operation  in  every  particular  in  which  they  have  not  been 


35 


repealed  in  express  terms  or  by  a  subsequent  repugnant  provision.  And 
as  there  has  been  no  such  repeal  of  the  qualifications  referred  to,  of  being 
inhabitants  of  New-York  and  professing  to  be  members  of  the  episcopal 
church,  they  are  still  required ;  and  all  the  securities  and  guaranties  of  the 
religious  character  of  Trinity  Church  and  of  the  proper  emplojinent  of 
its  funds,  are  retained  in  full  vigor.  That  the  remedy  for  any  perversion 
of  its  funds,  is  to  be  found  in  the  courts  of  justice,  and  not  in  the  repeal 
of  an  act  which  in  no  way  affects  the  guards  or  remedies  against  such 
perversion. 


STATE  OF  NEW-YORK 


No.  114. 

« 

m  ASSEMBLY, 

March  30,  1847. 


•  REPORT 

Of  the  committee  on  the  judiciary  on  sundry  memorials 
of  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York,  for  the  repeal 
or  modification  of  an  act  passed  January  25,  1814, 
entitled  "  An  act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  corporation 
of  Trinity  chiu-ch,  and  for  other  piuposes." 

The  committee  on  the  judiciary  to  which  have  been  referred  sundry 
memorials  of  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York,  praying  for  the 
repeal  or  modification  of  an  act  of  the  Legislature,  passed  January 
25,  1814,  entitled  "An  act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  church,  and  for  other  purposes,"  and  to  which  also  were 
referred  remonstrances  against  the  prayer  of  the  said  petitions  by  the 
corporation  of  Trinity  church,  and  of  sundry  Episcopalians  belonging 
to  different  churches  in  the  city  of  New-York, 

REPORT : 

Your  committee  have  examined  the  numerous  documents  which  have 
been  submitted  to  them  by  the  respective  parties,  and  have  patiently 
heard  the  able  arguments  addressed  to  them  by  the  counsel,  who  have 
represented  the  memorialists  and  the  remonstrants.  Some  of  your 
committee  were  prevented  by  other  duties  and  engagements,  from 

[Assembly,  No.  114.]  1  hj.  n.] 


2 


[Assembly 


hearing  all  those  arguments,  but  they  have  nevertheless  made  them- 
selves, as  they  believe,  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  subject  by  an 
examination  of  the  publications  of  the  parties,  to  enable  them  to  arrive 
at  a  satisfactory  conclusion. 

(,■ 

An  historical  account  of  public  and  legislative  acts,  relating  to  this 
corporation,  is  necessary  to  a  comprehension  of  the  questions  presented. 

On  the  6th  of  May,  1697,  the  Governor  of  the  Colony  of  New-York 
granted,  under  the  great  seal  of  the  Colony,  a  charter  incorporating 
the  Bishop  of  London  and  his  successors,  "together  with  all  the 
inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting,  or  to  inhabit  in  our  said  city 
of  New- York,  and  in  communion  of  our  aforesaid  Protestant  church 
of  England  "  by  the  name  of  "  The  rector  and  inhabitants  of  our  said 
city  of  New-York,  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  church  of  England, 
as  now  established  by  our  laws."  This  charter  constituted  the  city 
of  New-York  a  parish,  and  it  directed  that  two  churchwardens  and 
twenty  vestrymen  should  be  annually  elected  "by  a  majority  of  the 
votes  of  the  inhabitants  of  said  parish  in  communion  as  aforsaid." 

The  charter  also  endeavored  to  conform  the  parish  government  as 
nearly  as  possible  to  that  of  parishes  in  England,  and  among  other 
things,  authorized  the  vestry  to  assess  upon  the  inhabitants  of  the 
parish,  the  expense  of  finishing  the  church,  &c.,  and  the  salary  of  an 
assistant  minister,  subject  to  confirmation  by  two  justices  of  the  peace, 
and  in  like  manner  make  rates  for  repairing  the  church  and  premises 
connected  therewith. 

On  the  27th  of  June,  1704,  the  Colonial  Legislature  passed  "An 
act  for  granting  sundry  privileges  and  powers  to  the  rector  and  inhabi- 
tants of  the  city  of  New- York,  of  the  communion  of  the  church  of 
England  as  by  law  established."  Without  the  usual  words  of  a  new 
incorporation,  this  act  vests  corporate  powers  in  the  same  persons  to 
whom  the  charter  had  been  previously  granted,  and  (in  the  words  of 
the  memorialists)  "by  which  all  the  material  provisions  of  the  original 
charter  were  substantially  enacted  as  law,"  "with  a  slight  and  imma- 
terial change  in  the  name  and  style  of  the  corporation." 

It  is  contended  on  the  part  of  the  memorialists,  that  this  act  was 
passed  in  consequence  of  the  charter  being  wholly  void  and  inoperative. 
On  the  part  of  the  remonstrants  it  is  insisted  that  its  main  object 


No.  114.] 


3 


was  to  confirm  the  title  of  the  corporation  to  lands  which  had  been 
granted  to  it  prior  to  the  charter,  and  which  it  was  not  in  the  power 
of  the  Governor  to  confirm ;  and  that  other  principal  objects  were,  to 
vest  the  selection  of  a  rector  of  the  church  in  its  own  wardens  and 
vestrymen,  instead  of  the  vestry  chosen  by  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
city,  and  to  authorize  the  rector  to  receive  the  one  hundred  pounds 
raised  for  the  support  of  a  Protestant  minister,  which  by  a  preceding 
colonial  act  was  to  be  collected  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city,  and  in 
respect  to  which  great  doubts  might  exist  of  the  power  of  the  Gover- 
nor by  his  charter,  to  make  such  appropriation. 

It  may  be  proper  to  remark  here,  that  although  the  charter  of  1697 
is  not  in  terms  referred  to  by  the  colonial  act,  yet  it  is  difiicult  to  read 
the  latter  without  perceiving  that  it  is,  in  its  provisions,  supplemental 
to  some  pre-existing  grant  of  corporate  power.  It  does  not  contain 
the  usual  words  of  a  new  and  original  corporation,  but  declares  that 
"  the  rector  and  inhabitants  in  the  said  city  of  New-York,  in  commu- 
nion, &c.,"  should  possess  the  specified  corporate  rights  ;  it  provides 
for  a  vacancy  by  the  death  of  "the  present  rector,"  and  it  confirms  to 
the  corporators,  lands  purchased  by  "their  predecessors."  The  term 
"rector"  in  itself  implies  a  church  and  parish  or  incorporation,  for 
without  these,  there  can  be  no  such  officer ;  and  it  is  difficult  to 
explain  the  term  "predecessors"  without  the  idea  of  a  previous  cor- 
poration. 

But  whether  the  charter  was  recognised  by  the  colonial  act  or  not, 
it  would  seem  to  have  been  superseded  by  it,  so  far  as  the  provisions 
of  the  two  instruments  were  repugnant  or  inconsistent. 

In  respect  to  the  question  which  is  presented  by  the  memorialists, 
relating  to  the  right  of  voting  ;  it  may  be  remarked  here,  that  although 
some  dispute  has  existed,  yet  the  counsel  who  appeared  before  the 
committee  in  behalf  of  both  parties,  distinctly  admitted  that  communi- 
cants only,  were  entitled  to  that  privilege,  either  by  the  colonial  act, 
or  by  the  charter,  and  that  on  this  point  there  was  no  difference 
between  them. 

The  corporation  of  Trinity  church  continued  under  the  law,  or  under 
the  charter  and  the  law,  until  the  Independence  of  the  Colonies  was 
established  by  the  Revolution.  This  event  affected  many  provisions 
in  the  charter  and  act  of  1704,  which  were  incongruous  with  the  new 
government  and  the  spirit  of  our  institutions.    Soon  after  the  peace 


4 


[Assembly 


therefore,  and  on  the  17th  of  April,  1784,  the  Legislature  passed 
"  an  act  for  making  such  alterations  in  the  charter  of  the  corporation 
of  Trinity  church  as  to  render  it  more  conformable  to  the  Constitution 
of  this  State."  As  the  provisions  of  this  act  will  be  the  subject  of 
particular  consideration  when  your  committee  come  to  consider  the 
grounds  on  which  the  memorialists  ask  the  interposition  of  tlie  Legis- 
lature, they  refrain,  for  the  present,  from  a  detailed  statement  of  them. 

It  may  be  remarked,  however,  that  this  act  left  the  name  of  the 
corporation  unaltered,  viz:  "  The  rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New-York,  in  communion  of  the  Church  of  England."  In  1788,  an 
act  was  therefore  passed,  which  changed  the  name  to  "  The  rector  and 
inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church  of  the  State  of  New-York."  This  act  made  no 
change  in  the  rights  of  the  corporators,  nor  in  the  powers  of  the  corpo- 
ration, but  in  its  recital  states  that  the  colonial  act  of  1704  was  repealed 
by  the  law  already  quoted,  of  1784,  but  that  the  corporation  had  con- 
tinued to  use  the  name  therein  specified,  and  had  prayed  to  be  enabled 
to  assume  the  new  name  given  them  by  the  act. 

There  does  not  appear  to  have  been  &ny  further  legislation  upon 
the  subject,  until  1813,  when  a  petition  was  presented  from  the  cor- 
poration, stating  the  occurrence  of  circumstances  which  rendered 
further  legislative  provision  necessary.  These  were,  that  since  the 
act  of  1784,  the  pew-holders  of  Trinity  church  and  its  chapels,  and 
the  regular  communicants  therein,  have  been  the  only  persons  admit- 
ted to  vote  at  elections  for  churchwardens  and  vestrymen  of  the  cor- 
poration ;  that  owing  to  the  growth  of  the  city,  numerous  Episco- 
palians therein  had  formed  distinct  church  corporations,  having  their 
own  rectors  and  other  officers,  totally  independent  of  the  petitioners, 
and  neither  possessing  nor  claiming  any  right  for  themselves  or  their 
members  to  vote  in  the  elections,  or  regulate  the  affairs  of  Trinity 
church ;  but  that  two  or  three  individuals  belonging  to  these  new 
corporations,  had,  in  March,  1812,  claimed  a  right  to  vote  in  the 
elections  for  Trinity  church,  whose  votes  had  been  rejected  by  the 
petitioners,  and  no  measures  had  been  taken  to  establish  the  right  so 
claimed  ;  and  they  urged  that  it  had  become  essential  to  the  peace 
and  harmony  of  the  said  church,  that  all  doubts  respecting  the 
persons  entitled  to  vote  at  the  elections  of  Trinity  cliurch,  which 
might  exist  or  arise  in  consequence  of  the  said  separate  corporations, 
should  be  finally  obviated  and  settled.    They  represented  also,  that  in 


No  .  114.] 


5 


consequence  of  the  formation  of  these  new  churches,  the  name  of 
their  corporation  had  become  inappropriate  and  inapplicable,  as  it  did 
not  comprehend  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  who 
professed  to  be  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church.  They  therefore, 
prayed  for  an  act  to  change  their  name,  and  to  obviate  and  settle  the 
questions  that  might  arise  in  consequence  of  incorporating  other 
Episcopal  congregations  in  the  city  of  New-York.  The  contents  of 
this  petition  are  given  thus  minutely,  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting 
how  plainly  and  explicitly  it  presented  to  the  Legislature  of  1813, 
the  very  question  which  is  now  agitated  by  the  memorialists;  the 
right,  namely,  of  the  members  of  other  Episcopal  congregations  in 
New- York  to  vote  or  interfere  in  the  affairs  of  Trinity  church,  and 
solicited  an  act  to  settle  that  question. 

That  the  grounds  of  that  petition,  and  the  objects  stated,  were 
perfectly  understood  at  the  time,  by  all  persons  concerned,  and  must 
have  been  understood  by  the  Legislature,  appears  from  the  memorial 
of  Thomas  Farmer,  chairman  of  a  meeting  of  Episcopalians  at 
Mechanics'  Hall,  dated  March  .3,  1813,  which  represents  that  "the 
congregation  of  Trinity  church,  (the  members  of  which  are  but  a 
small  proportion  of  the  Episcopal  inhabitants  of  the  said  city,)  have 
usurped  all  the  privileges,  and  taken  into  their  possession  all  the 
property  of  the  corporation  ;  thereby  disfranchising  in  respect  to  the 
said  charter,  a  great  majority  of  the  Episcopal  inhabitants  of  the 
city  ;"  "  that  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church  which  is  a  body  elected 
by  the  members  of  that  congregation  solely,  have  appointed  a  depu- 
tation to  proceed  to  Albany  and  to  use  their  influence  to  obtain  from 
the  Legislature  an  act  to  confirm  their  unjust  usurpations."  The 
memorial  prays,  "  that  no  law  may  be  passed  which  will  sanction  the 
unjust  proceedings  of  Trinity  church,  or  that  may  affect  the  rights 
of  the  Episcopal  inhabitants  of  the  city,  ivho  are  not  memlers  of 
the  congregation  of  Trinity  church,  but  who  have  equal  claims  with 
them  to  the  privileges  and  benefits  of  the  charter." 

The  single  and  distinct  issue  thus  presented,  of  the  right  of  those 
who  were  not  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  church  to  vote 
for  its  officers  and  regulate  its  affairs,  came  before  the  Legislature  of 
1813  ;  the  petition  of  the  corporation  being  presented  on  the  17th  of 
March,  and  the  memorial  or  remonstrance  on  the  18th.  On  the  20th 
of  March,  the  bill,  in  accordance  with  the  prayer  of  the  petition,  was 


6 


[Assembly 


considered  and  agreed  to,  with  an  amendment,  in  the  committee  of 
the  whole  of  the  Senate,  and  on  the  25th  of  the  same  month  it 
passed  that  body  by  a  vote  of  21  to  9.  It  was  sent  to  the  house  of 
Assembly,  and  on  the  30th  of  the  same  month  it  was  referred  to  the 
Attorney-General,  to  report  whether  in  his  opinion  the  bill  "would  in 
any  wise  defeat  or  vary  any  existing  vested  rights  under  the  charter 
granted  May  6th,  1697,  or  any  acts  altering  the  said  charter.  On  the 
31st  of  March,  the  Attorney-General,  Mr.  Van  Vechten,  reported 
that  he  had  examined  a  printed  copy  of  the  charter  granted  in 
1697,  and  the  acts  altering  the  said  charter,  together  with  the  bill 
referred  to  him,  "  and  that  he  is  of  opinion  that  the  passage  of 
the  said  bill  will  not  defeat  or  vary  any  existing  vested  rights  under 
the  said  charter  and  acts."  On  the  2d  of  April,  the  Assembly 
considered  the  bill  in  committee  of  the  whole,  when  a  motion  was 
made  to  reject  it,  upon  which  the  votes  were  23  in  tlie  affirmative  and 
66  in  the  negative,  and  on  the  same  day  the  bill  passed  the  house 
without  any  division.  It  was  sent  to  the  Council  of  Revision  and 
by  them  referred  to  Chancellor  Lansing,  who  reported  objections,  and 
on  the  25th  of  January,  1814,  the  council  proceeded  to  consider  the 
same,  and  on  the  question  of  agreeing  to  the  objections,  the  council 
was  equally  divided.  Chancellor  Lansing  voting  against  them.  And 
the  bill  not  being  returned  within  the  time  prescribed  by  the  Consti- 
tution became  a  law. 

This  law  went  into  operation ;  the  corporation  assumed  the  new 
name  it  gave ;  all  public  manifestations  of  difficulty  in  the  church 
ceased ;  the  opposition  to  its  provisions  was  no  more  heard  of,  and 
all  parties  appear  to  have  acquiesced  quietly,  if  not  cheerfully,  in 
the  disposition  it  had  made  of  the  subject  of  controversy.  Things 
remained  in  this  condition  for  thirty-two  years,  without  a  single 
movement  being  made  by  those  Episcopalians  who  did  not  belong 
to  the  congregation  of  Trinity  church  to  assert  any  claim  to  vote  for 
its  officers,  which  had  been  expressly  denied  and  prohibited  by  this 
law.  Elections  of  officers  of  the  corporation  were  made  exclusively 
by  those  who  possessed  the  qualifications  prescribed  by  that  act, 
and  no  instance  is  adduced  during  this  long  period,  of  any  Epicopalian 
not  belonging  to  the  congregation  of  Trinity  church,  ever  having 
offered  to  vote  at  any  one  of  its  elections. 


No.  114.] 


7 


A  memorial  was  presented  to  the  Legislature  in  184G,  in  behalf  of 
those  who  were  not  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  church, 
but  were  members  of  other  incorporated  Episcopal  churches  in  the 
city  of  New-York,  presenting  the  identical  question  which  was  dis- 
posed of  by  the  Legislature  of  1813,  complaining  of  their  exclusion 
from  the  right  of  voting  for  officers  of  Trinity  church  by  the  act  of 
1814,  and  asking  a  repeal  or  modification  of  that  act.  Against  this 
memorial  remonstrances  were  made  by  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
church,  and  by  Episcopalians  of  other  churches  in  the  city.  These 
were  referred  to  one  of  the  standing  committees  of  the  Senate,  a 
majority  of  which  on  the  9th  of  April  1846,  reported  against  the 
prayer  of  the  memorialists,  and  one  of  the  committee  submitted  an 
elaborate  report  in  its  favor.  No  further  action  was  had  on  the 
subject. 

The  memorials  have  been  renewed  the  present  year,  and  with  the 
remonstrances  of  Trinity  church  and  of  Episcopalians  belonging  to 
other  incorporated  churches  in  the  city,  have  been  presented  and 
referred  to  your  committee. 

It  is  not  the  purpose  of  your  committee  to  discuss  and  decide  upon 
the  various  positions  which  have  been  taken  by  those  who  have 
represented  the  parties  before  them.  Many  of  these  positions  appear 
to  your  committee  to  have  scarcely  any  bearing  upon  the  real  merits 
of  the  controversy,  aud  others  are  so  entirely  of  a  judicial  character, 
that  your  committee  consider  any  attempt  to  decide  them,  a  palpable 
and  direct  violation  of  those  fundamental  principles  which  in  our 
government  separate  the  judicial  from  the  legislative  department. 

The  committee  will  proceed  to  state  such  of  those  positions  as  they 
deem  important,  that  the  House  may  judge  of  their  character,  and  of 
the  justness  of  the  conclusions  to  which  the  committee  have  arrived. 

Two  principal  grounds  are  assigned  for  the  repeal  or  modification  of 
the  act  of  1814,  viz.: 

First,  that  it  was  passed  under  misrepresentation  and  misappre- 
hension. 

Second,  that  it  was  unconstitutional,  as  it  impaired  the  obligations 
of  the  contract  entered  into  by  a  previous  Legislature,  with  the 
corporators  of  Trinity  church. 


8 


[Assembly 


Under  the  first  head,  the  misrepresentation  is  alleged  to  have  been 
made  in  the  petition  of  Trinity  cluirch  in  1813,  in  stating  that  it  was 
incorporated  by  the  charter  of  the  Governor  in  1697,  and  had  con- 
tinued to  be  a  body  corporate  by  virtue  of  that  charter ;  and  in 
pamphlets  published  at  or  about  the  time  of  the  application  for  the 
law,  in  which  similar  representations  were  made ;  £fnd  also  tliat  in  the 
petition,  and  in  those  pamphlets,  no  reference  was  made  to  the  colonial 
act  of  1704.  It  is  admitted,  and  indeed  insisted  upon  by  those 
making  this  objection,  that  the  petitioners  honestly  believed  the  truth 
of  what  they  said,  but  that  they  and  the  writers  of  the  pamphlets 
referred  to,  were  in  a  common  error,  and  were  wholly  mistaken  as  to 
the  source  of  the  corporate  powers  and  the  rights  of  the  corporators ; 
that  the  Legislature  participated  in  this  misapprehension,  and  under 
its  influence  passed  the  law  in  question. 

The  improbability  of  such  extraordinary  and  universal  delusion  is 
enhanced  by  the  recollection  that  the  Legislature  was  composed  of 
some  of  the  most  distinguished  men  in  the  State,  and  was  assisted  by 
the  investigations  of  such  au  Attorney-General  as  Abraham  Van 
Vechten. 

One  alleged  misrepresentation  was,  that  the  corporation  had  been 
created  by  the  charter  of  the  colonial  Governor,  and  had  continued  a 
body  corporate  by  virtue  of  that  charter.  It  is  conceded  that  there 
was  such  a  charter  in  point  of  fact,  but  it  is  contended  by  the 
memorialists  that  it  was  void: 

First,  because  the  Governor's  commission  gave  him  no  express 
authority  to  grant  any  charter  of  incorporation :  and 

Second,  because  the  charter  contained  some  provisions  which  could 

be  enacted   only  by  the   legislative  authority ;    those  particularly, 

empowering  the  vestry  to  assess  upon  tlie  inhabitants  of  the  parish  the 

expenses  of  finishing  and  repairing  tlie  church,  &c.;  and  that  as  the 

charter  was  thus  void  in  part,  it  was  wholly  void. 
■% 

In  reply,  it  is  urged  tliat  the  Governors  of  the  colonies  by  virtue 
of  and  incident  to  their  offices  represented  the  sovereign,  and  possessed 
his  powers  so  far  as  their  exercise  was  necessary  or  proper  in  the 
condition  of  the  colonies  :  that  they  received  instructions  from  the 
crown,  in  addition  to  their  commissions,  which  were  retained  by  them, 
and  of  which  no  copies  are  preserved :  that  the  colonial  records  con- 


No.  114.] 


9 


tain  numerous  charters  granted  by  the  Governors  under  the  provincial 
seal,  and  not  one  originating  directly  from  the  crown ;  that  this 
practice  of  the  Governors  was  common  in  all  the  colonies,  and  was 
never  disapproved  by  the  government  of  England,  or  any  of  its 
departments ;  that  these  charters  were  repeatedly  recognised  by  the 
State  Legislature  immediately  after  the  revolution,  and  from  that  day 
until  now  have  never  been  questioned ;  that  the  most  severely  con- 
tested cases  have  arisen  upon  them,  particularly  that  of  Dartmouth 
College,  which  have  been  carried  through  the  State  courts  and  those 
of  the  United  States,  and  in  which  the  most  distinguished  counsel 
have  been  engaged  without  a  question  or  doubt  being  suggested  from 
any  quarter,  of  their  validity ;  and  that  for  a  period  of  one  hundred 
and  fifty  years,  they  have  been  received,  held  and  acted  upon  by  all 
the  departments  of  government,  in  this  and  the  other  colonies  and 
States  as  having  equal  force  and  authority  with  a  charter  direct  from 
the  crown. 

In  reply  to  the  allegation  that  the  Governor,  in  tlie  charter  of  1697 
assumed  legislative  powers  in  authorising  assessments  to  finish  and 
repair  the  church,  it  is  maintained,  that  conceding  the  illegality  of 
those  separate  independent  provisions,  they  did  not  taint  or  in  any 
manner  afi'ect  other  clauses  of  the  charter,  according  to  the  universal 
rule  applicable  to  charters  and  patents  as  to  every  other  grant  or  act ; 
that  they  may  be  void  in  part  and  good  in  part.  That  the  corpora- 
tion and  the  charter  creating  it,  were  recognised  by  the  colonial  act 
of  1704,  as  hereinbefore  particularly  stated :  that  it  was  six  times 
referred  to  and  recognised  as  valid  by  the  act  of  1784,  and  that  the 
petitioners  were  perfectly  justified  in  asserting  that  their  corporation 
was  created  by  it,  and  was  continued  under  it ;  that  Thomas  Farmer 
and  the  other  remonstrants  were  equally  warranted  in  regarding  it  as 
a  valid  act  of  incorporation,  and  the  Legislature  of,  1813  did  not  act 
under  any'  misapprehension  of  either  law  or  fact,  in  treating  it  as 
such. 

Another  misrepresentation  alleged  by  the  remonstrants  to  have 
been  made  to  the  Legislature  of  1813,  is  said  by  them,  to  consist  in 
the  suppression  of  the  colonial  act  of  1704,  little  or  no  reference 
having  been  made  in  the  petitions  and  papers  presented  to  the 
Legislature,  who  were  thus  led  to  disregard  its  provisions  in  their 
,   [Assembly,  No.  114.]  -2 


10 


[Assembly 


bearing  upou  the  qualifications  of  corporators  of  the  church.  Various 
answers  are  given  to  this  allegation  ;  first,  that  it  is  a  misapplication 
of  words  to  talk  of  suppressing  a  printed  statute  contained  in  all  t^e 
editions  of  the  colonial  acts,  which  wcro  in  the  hands  of  every  lawyer, 
and  were  accessible  to  any  member  of  the  Legislature,  and  that  the 
amount  of  this  charge  is  simply,  that  it  was  rwt  referred  to,  as  an 
existing  and  operative  law  in  1813  ;  second,  that  it  was  sufficiently 
indicated  by  referring  to  the  act  of  1784,  which  repeatedly  mentions 
it,  and  third,  that  being  expressly  repealed  by  the  act  of  1784,  it 
did  not  in  any  manner  aU'ect  the  question  then  presented.  It  is  con- 
tended on  the  other  hand,  that  although  the  act  of  1784  does  in  terms 
repeal  the  colonial  act  of  1704,  yet  that  such  was  not  the  intention 
of  the  Legislature,  and  that  by  transposing  the  proviso  of  the  first 
section  of  the  act  of  1784,  from  its  present  location,  and  adding  it  to 
the  6th  section,  the  repeal  may  be  qualified  so  as  to  apply  only  to 
such  portions  of  the  act  of  1704,  as  are  inconsistent  with  the  Consti- 
tution. ^ 

Your  committee  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  discuss  or  decide  these 
questions,  and  they  confess  their  own  conviction,  that  a  plain  state- 
ment of  them  is  sufficient.  But,  they  are  wholly  unable  to  compre- 
hend the  importance  which  seems  to  be  attached  to  the  charge  of 
misrepresentation  and  suppression.  The  complaint  of  the  memorialists, 
is,  that  the  law  of  1814,  defining  the  qualifications  of  voters  for 
officers  of  Trinity  church,  conformed  to  a  construction  given  to  the 
terms  "inhabitants  of  the  parish,"  in  the  charter  of  1697,  instead 
of  the  language  "inhabitants  of  the  city,"  contained  in  the  colonial 
act  of  1704.  But,  your  committee  are  not  at  all  satisfied  that  the 
Legislature  which  passed  the  act  of  1814,  intended  to  give  a  con- 
struction either  to  the  charter  or  to  the  colonial  act,  but  rather  think 
that  they  confined  themselves  to  an  exposition  of  the  act  of  1784, 
and  its  application  to  the  new  state  of  things  caused  by  the  incorpo- 
ration of  other  Episcopal  churches  in  the  city  of  New-York,  which 
the  preamble  of  the  act  distinctly  states  to  be  its  object ;  and  the 
pamphlets  referred  to  as  furnishing  evidence  that  any  particular  con- 
struction of  the  charter  influenced  the  Legislature,  do  not  establish 
the  fact.  But  admitting  the  truth  of  the  allegation,  can  it  be  denied 
that  it  was  perfectly  competent  to  the  Legislature,  and  entirely  pro- 
per, to  refer  to  all  the  charters,  grants  and  acts  bearing  upon  the 
subject,  and  particularly  to  that  charter  which  had  been  recognised 


No.  114.]  11 

by  the  acts  of  all  parties,  for  the  last  preceding  thirty  j'ears,  and  to 
which  both  petitioners  and  remonstrants  referred  as  the  original  source 
of  the  title  of  the  corporators  ? 

The  Legislature  was  called  upon  to  settle  the  question,  whether 
persons,  who,  since  the  act  of  1784,  had  attached  themselves  to  other 
Episcopal  incorporated  churches  and  congregations,  and  who  were  not 
members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  church,  had,  or  should  have, 
a  right  to  vote  for  the  officers  of  that  church  and  to  regulate  its 
affairs  ?  One  enquiry  would  be,  how  had  the  matter  been  regulated 
by  those  laws  and  charters  which  had  at  any  time  prevailed,  and  been 
regarded  by  the  corporators  as  authoritative  ?  And  can  it  be  seriously 
nrged,  that  such  an  enquiry  and  such  a  reference  would  so  vitiate 
the  law,  as  to  require  its  repeal  on  such  a  ground  ?  It  is  rather  to  be 
supposed  'that  the  reason  put  forth  in  the  petition,  and  urged  in  the 
pamphlet,  which  was  probably  circulated  among  the  members,  influ- 
enced the  Legislature.  It  was,  that  other  Episcopal  congregations 
had  been  incorporated  iu  the  city  of  New-York,  "each  having  its  own 
peculiar  endowments  and  places  of  worship,  with  rectors  and  other 
officers  of  their  own  choice,  totally  independent  of  any  control  or 
interference  of  your  petitioners,"  and  that  the  members  of  these 
congregations  could  not  be  considered  as  members  also  of  another 
corporation,  from  which  they  had  seceded.  At  all  events,  your  com- 
mittee see  in  this  some  reason  to  induce  the  action  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  1813,  in  resolving  doubts  which  those  persons  who  had 
raised  them,  neglected  to  have  determined  by  the  judicial  tribunals. 

There  would  appear  to  be  as  great  au  incompatibility  in  the 
members  of  one  religious  corporation  acting  at  the  same  time  as 
members  of  another  incorporated  church  of  the  same  denomination, 
which  has  a  general  representative  assembly  to  regulate  its  affairs, 
as  there  would  be  in  any  citizen's  voting  in  one  county  or  town,  for 
members  of  the  Assembly,  and  at  the  same  time  voting  in  another 
town  or  county  for  representatives  in  the  same  body.  It  would 
appear  to  be  unjust  to  others,  and  would  defeat  the  purpose  of  separate 
organizations.  Our  courts  have  uniformly  acted  on  the  principle, 
that  it  was  an  inherent  implication  in  all  laws,  that  officers  and  per- 
sons could  not  act  in  relations  that  were  incompatible  with  each 
other.  Hence,  a  justice  of  the  peace  cannot  be  an  overseer  of  the 
poor,  as  he  audits  the  accounts  of  the  overseers,  (1  Burrows,  245, 
and  other  cases  in  2  D.  and  E.,  81,  777.)    Our  acts  relating  to 


12 


[Assembly 


religious  corporations  have  recognised  this  incompatibility,  by  enabling 
those  only  to  incorporate  themselves,  as  Episcopal  congregations, 
who  are  not  already  incorporated  ;  and,  in  this  respect,  have  made  a 
difference  between  them  and  otlier  incorporations.  Their  members 
compose  a  religious  coninmnity,  which,  from  its  nature,  would  appear 
to  be  separate  from  and  independent  of  any  other,  in  the  same  manner 
as  States,  counties  and  towns  ;  and  it  would  seem  as  impossible  for  a 
man  to  be  at  the  same  time  an  inhabitant  and  elector  in  two  States, 
counties  or  towns,  as  in  two  religious  communities.  And  wlierever 
this  inconsistency  exists,  the  last  that  is  accepted  or  taken,  ipso  facto 
vacates  the  former.    (See  the  cases  before  cited.) 

These  are  familiar  general  principles,  which  may  be  supposed  to 
have  been  known  to  the  Legislature  of  1813,  and  they  afford  a  much 
more  satisfactory  reason  for  what  may  very  propprly  be  considered  a 
declaratory  law  as  passed  by  them. 

If  an  act  of  the  Legislature  could  over  be  repealed  on  the  ground 
of  misrepresentation  and  misapprehension,  the  evidence  of  both  should 
be  very  clear  and  decisive.  Your  committee  do  not  deem  it  neces- 
sary to  decide  that  the  representations  made  to  the  Legislature  of 
1813,  were  accurate  in  law  and  in  fact,  but  they  say  that  the  evidence  . 
fails  to  satisfy  them,  that  they  were  false  in  any  particular ;  or  that 
the  Legislature  were  misled  by  them,  or  even  acted  upon  those  alleged 
to  have  been  made.  They  are  not  prepared  to  say  that  the  charter 
of  1697  was  granted  without  any  authority  in  the  Governor,  or  that 
it  was  wholly  void,  on  account  of  its  containing  some  void  and  illegal 
provisions.  They  are  far  from  being  convinced  that  the  colonial  act 
of  1704,  was  not  absolutely  and  wholly  repealed  by  the  positive 
words  of  the  act  of  1784 ;  and  as  it  is  indispensable  to  the  memo- 
rialists, to  establish  each  of  these  positions  affirmatively  and  clearly 
before  the  charge  of  misrepresentation  can  be  sustained,  the  com- 
mittee can  not  recommend  a  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814,  upon  this 
ground. 

This  point  ought  not  to  be  dismissed,  without  some  remark  upon 
the  general  question  of  repealing  an  act  relating  to  a  corporation,  on 
the  ground  of  misrepresentation.  The  rule  existing  at  the  common 
law,  and  which  is  recognized  by  our  statutes,  that  any  cliartcr  may  be 
vacated  by  regular  proceedings  in  a  court  of  justice,  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  passed  upon  some  fraudulent  suggestion,  or  concealment  of 


No.  114.] 


13 


a  material  fact,  makes  a  very  proper  distinction  between  such  imposi- 
tions, and  the  diversities  of  judgment  which  may  .prevail  in  different 
Legislatures,  upon  the  true  meaning  of  preceding  statutes,  or  upon 
the  nature  and  extent  of  powers  that  should  be  given  to  corporations 
or  their  members.  It  is  a  distinction  founded  upon  the  nature  of  the 
act,  which  is  a  compact  between  the  government  and  the  corporation, 
and  therein  differs  from  all  other  legislative  acts.  Contracts  can  not 
be  avoided  for  errors  of  judgment  or  mistakes  of  law,  and  not  even  for 
misrepresentation  or  concealment  of  facts,  when  the  means  of  know- 
ledge are  equally  within  the  reach  of  both  parties.  It  is  not  pretended 
in  this  case,  and  could  not  be,  that  the  act  of  1704  was  not  accessible 
to  every  member  of  the  Legislature.  But  in  truth  the  allegation  on 
the  part  of  the  memorialists,  amounts  to  this,  that  the  petitioners  and 
•remonstrants,  in  1813,  and  the  Legislature,  mistook  the  law  of  the 
case,  and  formed  an  erroneous  judgment  of  the  rights  of  the  corpora- 
tors. It  seems  to  your  committee,  that  it  would  be  a  departure  from 
all  the  analogies  of  law,  and  from  sound  principles  of  legislation,  to 
repeal  a  charter,  or  any  act  modifying  a  charter,  upon  such  a  ground, 
and  would  open  a  door  for  legislative  discretion,  that  would  effectually 
elude  that  great  principle  of  our  Constitution,  which  forbids  the  passage 
of  any  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  a  contract.  • 

The  remaining  principal  ground  on  which  the  repeal  of  the  act  of 
1814  is  solicited  is,  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  inasmuch  as  it  impaired  the  rights  of  corporators,  given 
by  the  act  of  1784.  The  title  of  this  act  professes  to  make  "  altera- 
tions in  the  charter  of  Trinity  church ;"  the  first  section  repeals 
certain  farts  of  the  charter,  the  second  section  authorizes  the  church- 
wardens and  vestrymen  to  call  and  induct  a  rector,  and  the  third 
describes  the  persons  who  shall  be  corporators  of  that  church ;  they 
are,  "all  persons  professing  themselves  members  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  who  shall  either  hold,  occupy  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in  the  said 
church,  arid  shall  regularly  pay  to  the  support  of  the  said  church,  and 
such  others  as  shall  in  the  said  church  partake  of  the  holy  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  supper,  at  least  once  in  every  year,  being  inhabitants  of 
the  city  and  county  of  New-York."  The  memorialists  complain  that 
these  qualifications  were  altered  by  the  second- section  of  the  act  of 
1814,  which  is  as  follows :  "  That  all  male  persons  of  full  age,  who, 
for  the  space  of  one  year  preceding  any  election,  shall  have  been  mem- 
bers of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  church  aforesaid,  or  of  any  of  the 


14 


[ASSEMBLT 


chapels  belonging  to  the  same,  and  forming  part  of  the  same  religious 
corporation,  and  who  shall  hold,  occupy  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in 
Trinity  church,  or  in  any  of  the  said  chapels,  or  have  partaken  of  the 
holy  communion  therein,  within  the  said  year,  and  no  other  persons 
shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  annual  elections  for  the  churchwardens 
and  vestrymen  of  the  said  corporation." 

The  points  in  which  the  memorialists  allege  their  rights  are  infringed 
by  the  above  section  are  these  :  first,  that  by  the  act  of  1784,  commu- 
nicants in  other  Episcopal  churches  were  corporators  of  Trinity  church, 
whereas  by  the  law  of  1814,  they  are  required  to  be  communicants  in 
Trinity  church  ;  second,  that  Episcopalians  holding  pews  or  seats  in 
other  Episcopal  churches,  are  deprived  of  the  right  of  voting,  which 
they  before  possessed  ;  and  third,  that  a  new  qualification  is  requisite, 
that  of  having  been  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  church. 
It  will  be  perceived  that  these  objections  substantially  unite  in  one, 
namely,  that  members  of  other  incorporated  Episcopal  congregrations 
in  the  city  are  excluded  from  being  voters  for  officers  of  Trinity  church, 
or  intermeddling  with  its  aflFairs. 

With  respect  to  the  first  and  second  objections,  it  is  maintained  by 
those  who  remonstrate  against  the  prayer  of  the  petition,  that  the 
qualifications  in  the  act  of  1814,  are  identical  with  those  in  the  law 
of  1784;  that  the  expression  in  the  last  mentioned  act,  "and  such 
others  as  shall,  in  the  said  church,  partake,  &c.,  are  the  same  as  the 
language  in  the  ac^  of  1814,  "or  have  partaken  of  the  holy  commu- 
nion therein,"  that  is,  in  Trinity  church  ;  that  the  requirement  of 
holding  and  occupying  a  pew  or  seat,  in  both  laws,  applies  to  Trinity 
church.  This  is  denied  by  the  memorialists,  who  contend  that  these 
requisites  in  the  act  of  1784,  refer  to  communion  and  to  seats  or  pews 
in  any  Episcopal  church.  Your  committee  are  not  convinced  that  such 
was  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  1784,  the  whole  scope  and  object  of 
which,  as  declared  by  its  title,  was  to  make  alterations  in.  the  char- 
ter of  Trinity  church  in  particular,  and  to  regulate  the  affairs  of  that 
church  ;  and  the  more  natural  construction,  would  seem  to  them  to 
refer  the  expressions,  "in  the  said  church,"  contained  in  the  third 
section,  to  the  same  particular  church  which  was  designated  by  the 
same  expressions  in  other  parts  of  the  same  act. 

In  a  professional  opinion  which  the  memorialists  appear  to  have 
adopted  by  appending  it  to  their  petition,  it  is  said,  in  reference  to  the 


No.  114] 


15 


3d  section  of  the  act  of  1784,  "  it  must  be  confessed  that  this  section 
is  expressed  in  terms  that  are  by  no  means  free  from  ambiguity.  It  is 
doubtful  whether  the  church  to  which  the  section  refers,  is  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  church  in  general,  or  Trinity  church  alone."  This 
I  admission  relieves  your  committee  from  all  diiEculty  on  those  points. 
They  cannot  recommend  the  repeal  of  a  law  as  being  unconstitutional, 
when  it  is  admitted  by  those  applying  for  the  repeal,  that  its  being  of 
that  character  is  doubtful. 

The  third  objection,  that  the  act  of  1814  confines  the  election  of 
officers  of  Trinity  church  to  members  of  the  congregation  of  that 
church,  in  exclusion  of  members  of  other  churches,  has  been  antici- 
pated and  somewhat  considered.  If  the  view  already  taken  is  correct, 
that  the  functions  and  powers  of  members  of  dilferent  religious  commu- 
nities of  the  same  denomination  are  in  their  nature  inconsistent  and 
incompatible ;  that  they  cannot  be  exercised  by  the  same  persons  at 
the  same  time  consistently  with  the  rights  of  others  and  with  the 
legitimate  objectn  of  separate  organizations,  then  this  provision  in  the 
act  of  1814  was  merely  declaratory  of  what  was  the  existing  law.  To 
justify  a  succeeding  Legislature  in  pronouncing  an  act  of  their  prede- 
cessors void,  and  to  repeal  it  on  the  ground  of  its  being  unconstitu- 
tional, the  reasons  should  be  at  least  as  cogent  as  those  which  would 
induce  a  court  of  justice  to  render  such  a  judgment.  The  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  has  said,  that  "the  presumption  must 
always  be  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  laws,  if  the  contrary  is  not  clearly 
demonstrated,"  and  also  that  "it  is  not  on  slight  implication  and  vague 
conjecture,  that  the  Legislature  is  to  be  pronounced  to  have  trans- 
cended its  powers,  and  its  acts  to  be  considered  void.  The  opposition 
between  the  Constitution  and  the  law  should  be  such,  that  the  judge 
feels  a  clear  and  strong  conviction  of  their  incompatibility  with  each 
other." 

Applying  these  manifestly  just  principles  to  the  point  under  con- 
sideration, your  committee  cannot  say  that  it  is  clearly  demonstrated 
that  the  act  of  1814,  in  excluding  from  the  privilege  of  voting  for 
olficers  of  Trinity  church,  the  members  of  other  incorporated  churches, 
or  in  confining  that  right  to  the  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity 
church,  has  done. any  more  than  was  already  implied  in  the  law  of 
1784,  and  in  all  acts  of  incorporation  of  religious  societies.  The  rule 
that  those  who  secede  from  any  body  or  community,  or  who  are  in  any 


16 


[Assembly 


way  separated  from  it,  relinquish  all  rights  and  privileges  as  members 
of  that  community,  has  been  established  in  so  many  cases,  and  is  so 
consonant  to  reason  and  justice  and  the  common  understanding  of 
mankind,  that  it  has  come  to  be  a  familiar  and  elementary  maxim.  It 
is  applied  to  citizens  and  subjects  abjuring  their  country,  to  inhabitants 
of  rfbunties  or  towns  divided,  and  to  members  of  all  associations  sever- 
ing their  connection.  And  your  committee  cannot  recommend  the 
repeal  of  a  law  on  the  ground  of  its  being  unconstitutional,  because  it 
recognizes  and  executes  this  rule. 

The  fact  of  an  acquiescence  for  more  than  thirty  years  in  the  pro- 
vision, which  thus,  as  the  memorialists  allege,  deprived  them  of 
existing  rights,  and  disfranchised  them  as  corporators,  is  relied  upon 
by  the  remonstrants,  as  an  unanswerable  objection  to  the  prayer  of  the 
petition.  They  insist  that  the  same  reasons  of  public  policy  which 
prescribe  limitations  to  controversies  in  courts  of  justice  between 
private  parties,  are  strictly  applicable  to  this  case ;  and  that  those 
who  have  so  long  submitted  to  what  they  now  allege  to  have  been  an 
invasion  of  their  rights,  while  the  means  of  redress  were  abundant 
and  were  open  to  them,  cannot  now  be  heard  in  the  application  which 
they  make  to  the  legislative  power.  The  chief  answers  which  have 
been  made  to  this  objection,  are,  that  the  limitations  referred  to  are 
technical  rules,  applicable  only  to  courts  of  justice,  and  not  to  legis- 
lative action  ;  and  that  the  mere  omission  to  exercise  a  right  is  not  a 
waiver  of  it.  Viewing  this  as  a  mere  private  controversy  between 
individuals,  relating  to  personal  privileges  claimed  by  one  set  and 
denied  by  the  other,  which  the  ordinary  courts  of  justice  now  are,  and 
at  all  times  have  been  entirely  competent  to  determine,  the  committee 
are  unable  to  perceive  why  it  should  not  be  subject  to  the  same  gen- 
eral rules  for  promoting  peace  and  quiet,  and  terminating  litigation, 
which  would  be  applicable  to  it  if  agitated  in  its  proper  tribunal ;  at 
least  they  think  such  a  principle  a  safe  guide  for  legislation  generally," 
and  they  sec  nothing  in  this  case  to  exempt  it  from  the  general  rule. 
There  has  been  no  impediment  or  obstruction  to  the  regular  and  usual 
jurisdiction  of  the  courts,  and  no  reason  has  been  assigned  why  resort 
has  not  been  had  to  them  in  some  of  the  vai-ious  forms  which  would 
have  afforded  ample  redress  for  any  wrong. 

The  case  does  not  present  a  mere  omission  to  exercise  an  unques- 
tioned right,  but  a  submission  to  and  acquiescence  in,  what  is  alleged 


No.  114.] 


17 


to  have  been  a  gross  wrong.  The  doctrine  of  acquiescence  is  not  and 
cannot  be  applied  to  any  other  case :  the  question  cannot  arise 
until  some  asserted  right  has  been  violated.  In  regard  to  corporate 
rights,  the  courts  have  fixed  upon  the  term  of  twenty  years  during 
which  they  must  be  claimed  or  exercised,  or  be  deemed  waived. 
This  is  the  longest  term  which  by  our  laws  is  allowed  to  individuals 
to  assert  their  i-ights  in  any  ease ;  and  an  exclusion  of  even  a 
rightful  claimant  from  the  possession  of  property,  or  the  enjoyment 
of  any  easement,  privilege  or  franchise,  during  that  term,  without 
any  proceeding  on  his  part  for  redress,  authorizes  and  demands 
the  presumption  of  a  waiver  and  abandonment  of  the  claim.  For  the 
reasons  already  given,  we  think  this  safe  and  salutary  rule  equally 
applicable  in  private  controversies,  to  legislative  bodies  and  courts  of 
justice. 

The  view  thus  presented  dispenses  with  the  necessity  of  considering 
much  at  large,  another  argument  presented  by  the  remonstrants, 
which  is,  that  the  charter  being  a  compact  between  the  government 
and  the  corporation,  it  was  competent  to  those  parties  by  mutual 
assent,  even  to  vary  its  essential  provisions;  that  the  application  of 
those  elected  by  the  corporators  to  represent  them,  for  a  modification 
of  the  charter,  is  in  the  first  instance  presumptive  evidence  of  the 
assent  of  the  corporators,  or  of  a  majority  of  them,  to  the  proposed 
modification ;  that  when  such  application  is  publicly  known,  and  a 
small  number  of  the  corporators  only  remonstrate  against  it,  the  pre- 
sumption is  strengthened,  that  it  receives  the  approbation  of  those 
corporators  who  are  silent ;  and  that  if  a  law  is  passed  pursuant  to 
such  application,  and  suffered  to  be  in  full  operation  for  so  long  a 
period  as  thirty  years,  without  complaint,  the  presumption  becomes 
conclusive,  and  the  evidence  complete,  that  the  alteration  was  made 
with  the  assent  of  the  body  of  the  corporators,  and  was  accepted  by 
them ;  and  thus  a  new  compact  has  been  made  between  the  govern- 
ment and  the  corporation,  and  the  rights  acquired  under  it  have 
become  vested. 

Having  expressed  the  opinion  that  it  did  not  so  clearly  appear 
that  the  act  of  1814  violated  the  rights  of  any  corporators,  so  as  to 
render  it  unconstitutional,  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  committee  to 

[Assembly,  No.  114.]  3 


18 


[Assembly 


decide  upon  the  force  of  the  argument  just  stated,  which  proceeds  on 
the  hypothetical  assumption,  that  the  then  existing  charter  was 
altered  by  that  act.  But  the  committee  are  of  opinion  that  the 
remonstrants  are  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  this  argument,  and  of  the 
evidence  furnished  by  the  passage  of  the  act  and  the  circumstances 
attending  it,  as  well  as  the  subsequent  acquiescence  of  all  the  corpo- 
rators, in  any  judicial  controversy  that  may  arise  between  them  and 
those  claiming  a  right  to  vote  in  opposition  to  the  provisions  of  that 
law.  To  the  memorialists  the  existence  of  the  act  can  afford  no 
obstacle  or  impediment  to  the  assertion  of  their  rights,  other  than 
what  may  be  derived  from  their  acquiescence  in  its  provisions  ;  for  if 
it  was  so  clearly  unconstitutional  as  to  justify  its  repeal,  the  same 
objection  would  inevitably  prevail  in  the  courts  of  justice. 

To  repeal  the  act,  if  it  had  any  eifect  whatever,  would  change 
the  relations  of  the  parties,  would  deprive  the  remonstrants  of 
evidence  upon  which  they  have  a  right  to  rely,  and  give  to  the 
memorialists  an  advantage  to  which  they  have  established  no  special 
or  peculiar  claim.  This,  your  committee  conceive,  would  be  unjust  to 
the  remonstrants.  And  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  this  is  purely 
and  exclusively  a  contest  respecting  private  rights,  in  which  the 
public  has  no  interest,  other  than  that  which  it  may  have  in  every 
other  private  suit. 

Your  committee  conceive  that  it  is  no  answer  to  this  view,  to  allege, 
that  if  the  argument  above  stated  be  sound,  and  a  new  compact  has 
been  made  between  the  government  of  the  State  and  the  corporation, 
by  the  act  of  1814  and  the  circumstances  attending  it,  then  the  law 
repealing  that  act,  would  be  in  itself  unconstitutional,  and  would  be 
so  pronounced  by  the  courts.  The  memorialists  have  no  right  to 
expect  this  Legislature  to  pass  a  law  of  doubtful  validity,  affecting 
the  rights  of  others,  merely  to  afford  an  opportunity  of  trying  an 
experiment,  to  obviate  the  consequences  of  their  own  acts  and 
omissions.  If,  upon  such  grounds  and  for  such  reasons,  the  act  of 
1814  should  be  now  repealed,  the  remonstrants  would  be  entitled  to 
come  to  the  next  Legislature,  upon  precisely  the  same  grounds,  and 
ask  the  repeal  of  such  repealing  act,  and  with  probably  equal,  if  not 
greater  force,  solicit  to  be  restored  to  a  condition  which  was  not  the 
consequence  of  their  own  neglect. 


No.  114.] 


19 


It  must  be  manifest  that  any  action  whatever  on  the  subject  by 
this  Legislature,  must  be  in  effect,  a  decision  upon  the  various  com- 
plicated, and  some  of  them  difficult  questions,  which  have  been 
presented  by  the  parties,  and  most  of  which  have  been  stated  in  this 
report,  and  particularly  the  constitutionality  of  the  act  of  1814. 
Your  committee  cannot  discover  on  what  ground  the  parties  have  a 
right  to  require  that  the  decision  of  these  questions  should  be  trans- 
ferred from  the  appropriate  tribunals  constituted  for  the  express 
purpose  of  determining  them,  to  a  legislative  body  created  for  purposes 
entirely  different.  There  is  no  question  of  public  policy  involved, 
nothing  affecting  the  interests  of  the  State  or  its  citizens  at  large, 
but  a  contest  merely  between  one  set  of  men  who  claim  a  right 
as  corporators,  and  another  set  who  deny  that  right.  The  Legislature 
is  not  the  tribunal  created  under  the  Constitution  to  settle  and 
determine  private  rights ;  and  the  attempt  to  do  so  would  be  as 
unwise,  if  not  unconstitutional,  as  it  would  be  disastrous  in  its  con- 
sequences ;  and  on  this  point  your  committee  are  gratified  in  being 
able  to  agree  in  the  remarks  of  the  Senator  who  made  the  minority 
report  to  the  Senate  in  1846,  before  referred  to :  "  if  the  memorialists 
possess  the  rights  that  they  claim,  they  should  be  left  to  assert  and 
vindicate  them  in  a  court  of  justice,  since  it  is  the  exclusive  province 
of  a  court  of  justice  to  establish  the  validity  of  their  claims,"  "the 
questions  which  they  involve  (the  grounds  presented  by  the  memo- 
rialists) are  precisely  those  that  the  Legislature  have  no  right  to 
determine  or  consider." 

The  question  now  submitted,  has  been  deliberately  passed  upon  by 
a  Legislature  whose  impartiality  and  intelligence  have  not  been  ques- 
tioned ;  that  disposition  has  been  acquiesced  in  for  thirty-two  years, 
by  persons  whose  rights  are  said  to  have  been  outraged ;  there  exists 
no  obstacle  to  the  fair  presentation  of  their  complaints  to  a  court  of 
justice,  unless  it  has  arisen  from  their  own  laches.  The  dispute  is 
one  substantially  of  a  private  nature,  and  the  committee  are  unable 
to  distinguish  between  this  case  and  that  of  any  other  claim  of  a 
private  right  or  difference  between  individuals,  so  as  to  render  it 
expedient  or  proper  for  the  members  of  the  Legislature  to  assume 
judicial  functions,  and  decide  between  those  parties.  They  therefore 
unanimously  recommend  to  the  House  the  adoption  of  the  following 
resolution : 


20 


[ASSEIIBLT 


Resolved,  That  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners  ought  not  to  be 
granted. 

M.  BURNELL,  Chairman, 
H.  SHUMWAY, 
J.  R.  FLANDERS. 

I  concur  in  the  foregoing  resolution. 

R.  BALCOM. 

The  undersigned  were  prevented  from  attending  the  argument  in 
the  foregoing  matter;  but  from  an  examination  of  the  papers  and 
documents  submitted  to  the  committee,  have  come  to  a  conclusion 
similar  to  that  above  expressed  and  concur  therein. 

JOHN  E.  DEVELIN, 

E.  B.  POTTLE, 

FRANCIS  UPTON  FENNO. 


REMONSTRANCE 


OP  THE 


COKPORATION  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH, 


AGAINST  THE 

REPEAL  OR  MODIFICATION 


OF  THE 


ACT  OF  25th  JANUARY,  1814, 


HELATING  TO  THAT  CORPOEATION,  AND  FOR  OTHER  PURPOSES. 


Presented  in  the  Honorable  House  of  Assembly, 
FFBRUARY  10th,  1847, 
By  Mr.  WEjJMAPf. 


ALBANY: 

C.  VAN  BENTHUYSEN  AND  CO.,  PUBLIC  PRINTERS. 


1847. 


At  a  meeting  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of  New- York,  held  at 
their  vestry  office,  on  the  first  day  of  February,  Anno  Dora.  1847 — 

A  Memorial  and  Remonstrance  to  the  Legislature  on  the  subjoot  of  an  intended 
application  at  its  present  session,  for  the  I'epeal  in  whole  or  in  part,  of  the  act  of  25tU 
January,  1814,  relating  to  this  Corporation,  was  presented  by  the  Comptroller  and 
read,  and  it  was  thereupon 

Ordered,  That  the  same  be  adopted,  and  that  it  be  signed  by  the  Rector,  Comp- 
troller and  Clerk,  officially,  and  by  the  Churchwardens  and  Vestrymen,  or  such  of 
them  as  shall  see  fit  to  sign  the  same  ;  and  that  the  Comptroller  and  Clerk  affix  the 
seal  of  this  Corporation  thereto,  and  that  the  same  be  thereupon  forwarded  and  pre- 
sented to  the  Legislature. 

(  A  Copy.  ) 

Wm.  E.  DUNSCOMB, 
Clerk. 


REMONSTRANCE. 


To  THE  Honorable  the  Senate  and  House  of  Assembly  of 
THE  State  of  New-York: 
The  Memorial  and  Remonstrance  of  the  Rector,  Churchwar- 
dens and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New-York, 

Respectfully  showeth: 

That  your  Memorialists  have  to  defend  themselves  against  an  ap- 
plication to  your  Honorable  bodies,  by  certain  persons  styling  them- 
selves, in  thtir  Petition,  lately  presented  to  the  Honorable  House 
of  Assembly,  Inhabitants  of  the  city  of  Mew-York^  in  communion 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of  JVew-York,  for 
the  repeal  or  modification  of  a  certain  law  in  relation  to  your  Me- 
morialists' corporation,  passed  January  25th,  1814,  entitled,  "  An 
act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in  New- 
York,  and  for  other  purposes." 

Your  Memorialists  respectfully  represent  to  your  Honorable 
bodies,  that  the  same  application  was  made  to  the  Legislature  of 
this  State,  at  the  last  session  thereofj  that  on  one  of  the  first  days 
of  the  session  of  1846,  a  petition,  having  exactly  the  same  prayer, 
and  almost  the  same  statement  of  facts,  and  not  varying  much  even 
in  words,  and  not  materially  in  substance  from  that  now  before  the 
Honorable  the  Assembly,  was  presented  in  the  Senate,  and  was  by 
that  body  referred  to  a  committee;  that  such  first  Petition  was,  from 
time  to  time,  followed  by  others,  in  the  same  words,  until  the  whole 
number  of  petitioners  was  588  and  no  more;  that  shortly  after  the 
presentation  of  the  first  of  said  petitions,  your  Memorialists  pre- 
sented to  the  said  Senate  the  following  humble  Remonstrance,  which 
they  beg  leave  now  to  confirm  and  reiterate,  that  is  to  say: 


4 


To   THE  IToNORABLE  THE  S'eNATE  AND   HoUSE  OF   ASSEMBLY  OF 

THE  State  of  New-York: 

The  Remonstrance  of  the  Rector,  Churchwardens  and  Vestry- 
men of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New-York, 

Respectfully  showeth: 

That  your  Remonstrants  have  heard  with  surprise  that  an  attempt 
is  being  made  to  induce  your  Honorable  bodies  to  pass  a  law  that 
will  seriously  invade  the  chartered  and  corporate  rights  of  your  Re- 
monstrants; that  such  attempt  is  to  procure  the  repeal  in  whole  or 
in  part  of  the  act  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New-York, 
entitled,  "  An  act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity 
Church  in  New-York,  and  for  other  purposes,"  passed  25th  January, 
1814:  or  that  it  may  be  so  modified  that  its  provisions  shall  not  be 
urged  as  creating  any  obstacle  to  an  assertion  of  certain  supposed 
legal  rights,  said  to  be  defined  and  fixed  by  the  previous  acts  of 
1784  and  1788. 

Your  Remonstrants  respectfully  represent  to  your  Honorable  bo- 
dies, that  when  the  said  act  of  25th  January,  1814,  was  applied  for, 
the  following  petition  for  the  same  vyas  presented  to  the  then  Le- 
gislature of  the  State,  viz: 

*  "  To  the  Honorable  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New-York: 
"  The  Petition  of  the  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New- 

"  York,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
"  State  of  New- York, 
"  Respectfully  showeth: 

"  That  so  long  ago  as  in  the  year  one  thousand  six  hundred  and 
"  ninety-seven,  your  Petitioners  were  incorporated  by  letters  patent 
"  under  the  great  seal  of  the  colony  of  New-York,  and  have  ever 

•  The  determination  to  apply  to  the  Legislature  appears  upon  the  minutes  of  the 
Vestry  of  the  4th  of  January,  1813,  in  the  following  form: 

"  Resolved,  That  Richard  Harison,  David  M.  Clarkson,  Thomas  Barrow,  Robert 
"  Troup,  Jacob  Le  Roy,  Peter  Augustus  Jay,  and  Thomas  L.  Ogden,  be  a  Committee 
"  on  the  State  of  the  Church,  with  full  power  to  make  such  application  to  the  Legis- 
"  lature  at  its  ensuing  session,  relative  to  the  affairs  of  this  Corporation,  as  the  said 
'•'  Committee  shall  judge  to  be  proper." 


5 


"  since  continued  to  be  a  body  politic  and  corporate,  by  virtue  of 
"  their  said  charter. 

"  That  at  the  time  of  granting  the  same,  it  was  contemplated 
*'  that  Trinity  Church  therein  mentioned,  should  be  the  sole  and 
"  only  parish  church  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  denomination,  in 
"  the  said  city,  and  that  in  fact  it  continued  to  be  so  until  the  Re- 
"  volution,  by  which  the  independence  of  the  United  States  was 
"  obtained,  and  for  a  number  of  years  after  that  memorable  epoch. 

"  Tiiat  soon  after  the  Revolution  above  mentioned,  an  act  of  the 
"  Legislature,  passed  for  making  such  alterations  in  the  charter  of 
"  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  as  to  render  it  more  conform- 
"  able  to  the  Constitution  of  the  State;  by  one  clause  whereof  all 
"  the  rights,  privileges,  benefits  and  emoluments  which  in  and  by 
"the  said  charter  were  designed  to  be  secured  to  the  inhabitants  of 
"  the  City  of  New-York  in  communion  of  the  Church  of  England, 
"  were  conferred  upon  all  persons  professing  themselves  members 
"  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  who  should  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a 
"  pew  or  seat  in  the  said  Church,  and  should  regularly  pay  to  the 
"  support  of  the  said  Church,  and  such  others  as  should  in  the  said 
"  Church  partake  of  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  at 
"  least  once  in  every  year,  being  inhabitants  of  the  said  city. 

"  Thgt  since  the  passing  of  the  act  above  reftrred  to,  the  pew- 
"  holders  of  Trinity  Church  and  of  the  churches  or  chapels  belong- 
"  ing  to  the  said  corporation,  and  the  regular  communicants  therein, 
"  have  been  the  only  persons  adinitted  to  vote  at  elections  for 
"  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  the  said  corporation  according 
"  to  the  just  and  fair  construction  contemporaneously  and  ever  since 
"  given  to  the  said  act. 

"Your  Petitioners  beg  leave  further  to  show,  that  in  consequence 
"  of  the  rapid  and  unexampled  increase  and  prosperity  of  our  coun- 
"  try  since  the  said  revolution,  and  the  corresponding  growth  and 
"  population  of  the  City  of  New-York,  Trinity  Church,  aforesaid, 
"  with  the  churches  and  chapels  belonging  to  its  corporation,  be- 
"  came  insufficient  for  the  accommodation  of  all  the  inhabitants  of 
"  said  city  who  professed  themselves  members  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
"  copal  Chui'ch,  or  wished  to  become  so,  on  which  account,  and  for 
"  a  variety  of  other  reasons  not  necessary  to  be  suggested,  numerous 
"persons  of  this  description  have  been  induced  from  time  to  time, 
"  to  form  themselves  into  distinct  corporations,  each  having  its  own 


6 


"  peculiar  endowments  and  places  of  worship,  with  rectors  and 
"  other  officers  of  their  own  choice,  totally  independent  of  any  con- 
"  trol  or  interference  of  your  Petitioners. 

"  That  a  number  of  such  religious  corporations  have  accordingly 
"  been  organized  as  the  law  directs,  some  with  and  some  %vithout 
"  the  concurrence  of  your  Petitioners;  to  all  which  your  Petitioners 
"  have  made  liberal  donations,  and  with  whose  internal  concerns 
"  your  Petitioners  or  any  of  the  members  of  the  corporation  of  Tri- 
"  nity  Church,  as  such,  do  not  claim  any  right  to  intermeddle  ;  nor 
"  do  the  said  corporations  possess  or  claim  any  right  for  themselves 
"  or  their  members  to  vote  in  the  elections,  or  regulate  the  affairs  of 
"  Trinity  Church. 

"  Nevertheless,  a  few  individuals  belonging  to  such  separate  cor- 
"  porations,  have  recently  pretended  to  claim  that  right,  and  at  the 
"  last  annual  election  of  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity 
"  Church,  held  in  the  month  of  March,  in  the  year  1812,  two  or 
"  three  persons  being  members  of  incorporated  churches,  separate 
"  and  distinct  from  your  Petitioners,  tendered  themselves  as  voters; 
'but  their  votes  under  an  ordinance  previously  passed  by  your  Pe- 
"  titioners,  were  rejected,  and  no  measures  have  been  yet  taken  to 
"  enforce  or  establish  the  right  so  claimed. 

"  It  must  be  obvious,  however,  that  attempts  of  this  nature  cannot 
"  fail  to  produce  strife  and  litigation,  and  to  foster  and  keep  alive 
"  pretensions  of  the  most  unreasonable  nature,  and  of  the  most  mis- 
"  chievous  tendency. 

"  Your  Petitioners  are,  moreover,  sensible  that  since  the  forma- 
"  tion  of  such  distinct  corporations,  the  corporate  name  by  which 
"  your  Petitioners  are  designated  has  become  inapplicable,  and  ought 
"  to  be  changed  ;  as  they  do  not  comprehend  in  their  body  all  the 
"  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  who  now  profess  to  be  of  the 
"  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  ;  and  your  Petitioners  are  further 
"  convinced  that  it  has  become  essential  to  the  peace  and  harmony 
"  of  said  church,  that  all  doubts  respecting  the  persons  entitled  to 
"  vote  for  churchwardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  which 
"  may  exist  or  arise  in  consequence  of  the  said  separate  incorpora- 
"tions,  should  be  finally  obviated  and  settled. 

"  Your  Petitioners  beg  leave  further  to  represent,  that  the  law 
"  which  requires  religious  corporations  in  New-York,  Albany,  and 


7 


"  Schenectady,  to  exhibit  an  inventory  and  account  of  their  estates 
"  and  revenue  at  certain  periods,  is  attended  with  considerable  ex- 
"  pense  and  trouble,  without  producing  any  valuable  effects ;  that 
"  after  such  inventory  and  account  has  once  been  exhibited  it  cannot 
"  be  useful  to  exhibit  it  again,  unless  the  corporation  should  acquire 
"  further  estates;  and  that  as  far  as  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
"  Church  is  concerned,  they  have  hitherto  complied  with  the  law, 
"  and  hold  no  property  (their  communion  plate  and  church  furniture 
"excepted)  other  than  what  they  held  and  were  possessed  of  long 
"  before  the  said  Revolution,  and  are  legally  entitled  lo  hold  by  the 
"  charters  and  grants  of  the  ancient  government,  confirmed  and 
"  established  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  ;  though  your  Petition- 
"  ers  have  greatly  diminished  that  property  by  grants  and  donations 
"  to  Columbia  College,  to  a  free  School  which  the  Legislature  has 
"  incorporated,  to  a  Society  formed  for  the  promotion  of  religion 
"  and  learning,  and  to  many  churches  and  religious  societies,  not 
"  only  in  the  city  of  New-York,  but  elsewhere  in  different  parts  of 
"  the  State. 

"  Your  Petitioners  therefore  pray,  that  your  Honorable  Body  will 
"  pass  an  Act  for  altering  the  name  of  their  incorporation ;  and  also 
"  to  obviate  and  settle  the  questions  that  might  arise  in  consequence 
"  of  incorporating  other  Episcopal  congregations  in  the  city  of  New- 
"  York  ;  and  to  do  away  the  necessity  of  such  inventory  and  ac- 
"  count  being  exhibited  more  than  once,  unless  upon  the  acquisition 
"  of  additional  property,  by  religious  corporations. 

"  And  your  Petitioners  will  ever  pray,  &c. 

"  By  order  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of 
"  New-York. 

"  [l.  S.J  T.  L.  Ogden,  Clerk:' 

Your  Remonstrants  further  respectfully  represent,  that  the  said 
petition  was  true  in  every  particular,  and  that  it  received  the  most 
favorable  attention  of  the  Legislature  —  that  the  bill  brought  in 
pursuant  to  its  prayer  "  was  popular  in  both  Houses  of  the  Legislh 
ture  and  it  passei  by  large  majorities."  That  objections  were 
however  made  to  it  in  the  Council  of  Revision,  which  upon  conside- 
ration were  neither  sustained  nor  overruled,  that  board  being  equally 
divided,  so  that  the  bill  became  a  law  by  virtue  of  the  clause  of  the 


s 


then  existing  Constitution,  the  Council  of  Revision  having  taken 
no  order  upon  the  subject.  But  your  Remonstrants  wouhl  respect- 
fully remark,  that  upon  the  .Hon.  Chancellor  Lansing's  considering 
the  arguments  contained  in  a  pamphlet  written  by  Robert  Troup, 
Esq.,  then  one  of  the  vestrymen  of  the  church,  which  is  referred  to 
in  a  note  immediately  following  the  act  in  the  Session  Laws  of 
1814  —  in  favor  of  the  bill  and  against  the  objections  of  the  Chan- 
cellor, he  was  constrained  to  change  his  opinion  and  to  vote  in  favor 
of  its  passage. 

And  your  Remonstrants  further  respectfully  represent,  that  if  the 
law  of  1814  had  never  been  passed,  the  reasons  urged  in  the  above 
petition  would  apply  at  the  present  day  with  much  greater  force 
than  they  did  then,  End  instead  of  allowing  the  then  existing  doubts 
to  continue,  it  would  be  an  act  of  wise  legislation  to  pass  a  similar 
act,  which  in  respect  to  the  section  now  complained  of,  is  merely 
declaratory  in  its  nature. 

And  your  Remonstrants  further  respectfully  represent,  that  the 
law  in  question,  at  the  time  it  was  pending  before  the  Legislature, 
received  the  almost  entire  support  of  all  the  Episcopalians  then  re- 
siding in  the  city  of  New- York.  That  by  the  nature  of  the  agree- 
ment with  the  corporation  of  St.  George's  church  in  said  city,  by 
which  it,  formerly  a  chapel,  was  separated  from  the  parish  of  Trinity 
Church  and  endowed  from  its  funds  and  estate,  all  claims  of  the  new 
corporation  and  of  its  members  upon  the  remainder  of  such  funds 
and  estate,  and  of  any  right  to  act  as  corporators  of  Trinity  Church, 
were  expressly  yielded,  and  that  renunciations  of  all  pretences  of 
that  nature  were  voluntarily  made  by  several  of  the  other  churches 
then  existing  in  said  city,  a  copy  of  one  of  which  is  hereunto  annex- 
ed and  respectfully  submitted. 

And  your  Remonstrants  further  respectfully  represent  that  the 
said  act,  has  now  been  in  force  thirty-two  years,  during  all  which 
time  it  has  been  submitted  to  and  acquiesced  in  by  every  body, 
except  in  one  instance  which  occurred  at  the  annual  election  in  the 
parish  of  Trinity  Church,  held  in  St.  Paul's  chapel  in  the  year  1844, 
and  at  a  time  of  uncommon  excitement  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  when  one  person,  and  he  a  gentleman  of  the  legal  profes- 
sion, claimed  the  right  to  vote ;  he  admitted  that  he  had  never  com- 
muned in  Trinity  Church  or  in  either  of  its  chapels,  that  he  did  not 


9 


own  or  hire  a  pew  or  seat  in  any  or  either  of  them,  and  had  never 
contributed  to  the  support  of  Trinity  Church  ;  that  such  claim  to 
vote  was  then  denied  ;  and  that  such  person  never  attempted  to 
establish  his  claim  by  recourse  to  any  court  of  justice  of  the 
country. 

And  your  Remonstrants  further  respectfully  represent,  that  owing 
to  the  great  increase  of  the  city,  instead  of  nine  other  Protestant 
Episcopal  Corporations,  as  there  were  in  the  city  of  New-York  in 
1813,  besides  your  Remonstrants  who  have  three  Church  edifices, 
each  of  which  accommodates  a  large  congregation,  there  are  now 
thirty-two  separate  and  distinct  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  Corpo- 
rations, and  four  organized  congregations,  as  yet  not  incorporated  to 
the  knowledge  of  your  Remonstrants,  including  two  of  colored 
people,  and  one  free  chapel  for  seamen.  That  all  the  said  churches 
which  have  been  added  since  1813,  must  in  law  be  deemed  to 
have  been  formerly  part  of  and  taken  from  some  one  or  more  of  the 
churches  or  parishes  that  existed  in  that  year,  and  the  members  of 
the  new  churches,  or  their  parents,  must  be  considered  as  formerly 
members  of  some  or  other  of  the  original  parishes,  but  that  in  fact 
a  great  proportion  of  said  new  congregations  have,  since  the  act  in 
question,  either  removed  to  the  said  city  from  other  parts  of  the 
State,  or  from  without  the  State,  or  have  joined  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  from  other  denominations  of  christians. 

And  your  Remonstrants  further  respectfully  represent  that  almost 
every  of  the  said  new  churches  in  New-York  have  been  assisted  by 
donations  from  the  property  and  funds  of  your  Remonstrants,  and 
that  they  have  during  the  last  thirty  years,  also  largely  contributed 
to  new  churches  in  every  other  part  of  the  State,  so  that  the  income 
of  the  corporation  has  never  been  at  all  equal  to  the  expenditures, 
the  deficiency  being  supplied  from  the  proceeds  of  sales  of  parts  of 
the  real  estate,  which  has  by  such  means  become  very  much  redu- 
ced in  quantity,  and  from  loans  made  to  your  Remonstrants. 

And  your  Remonstrants  further  respectfully  represent,  that  the 
elections  in  the  Episcopal  churches  are  usually  conducted  peaceably 
and  quietly,  and  rarely  with  any,  and  always  without  much  excite- 
ment, it  being  generally  understood  that  a  great  majority  of  every 
congregation,  if  not  all,  are  decidedly  of  one  opinion,  so  that  the 
minority,  if  any,  makes  no  opposition.    That  so  much  is  this  the 

2 


10 


case,  that  in  constituencies  consisting  of  several  hundreds,  it  is  not 
uncommon  that  only  a  few,  and  very  often  less  than  twenty,  votes 
are  received: — That  this  is  also  partly  caused  by  the  limitation  of 
the  elective  franchise  by  the  act  to  incorporate  Religious  Societies, 
to  male  persons  of  full  age,  otherwise  duly  qualified  according  to 
law: — That  in  the  elections  held  in  the  Corporation  of  Trinity 
Church,  when  there  is  no  contest,  the  number  of  votes  does  not  ex- 
ceed one  hundred  and  fifty  ;  but  that  whenever  it  was  known  that 
there  were  two  or  more  tickets,  the  number  has  been  much  larger. 
That  no  unfavorable  inference  should  be  drawn  from  the  neglect  of 
corporators  to  exercise  their  right  of  voting: — That  no  difficulty  is 
opposed  to  any  persons  becoming  corporators  ;  the  by-laws  of  your 
Remonstrants  having  set  the  door  of  the  church  wide  open  to  all, 
as  well  to  the  poor  as  to  the  rich,  to  come  in  and  constitute  themr 
selves  members  of  the  corporation,  the  requirements  being  merely 
that  they  shall  signify  their  intentions  to  the  Rector,  duly  attend  the 
services  of  the  church,  and  partake  of  the  Holy  Communion  "in 
said  church"  : — And  that  all  or  any  of  the  Petitioners  for  the  repeal 
of  the  act,  could  have,  and  can  at  pleasure  become  members  of  the 
corporation,  by  complying  with  such  easy  requirements,  "  without 
money  and  without  price." 

And  your  remonstrants  further  represent  that  the  said  act  of 
1814,  was  passed  at  a  time  when  peace  had  just  been  restored  after 
long  and  angry  controversies,  and  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the 
order  and  harmony  of  a  great  religious  communion,  which  it  has 
happily  effected  and  maintained  for  the  long  period  of  nearly  two 
generations  ;  and  that  it  is  now  sought  to  renew  these  long  settled 
disputes,  and  to  throw  a  firebrand  into  the  Church,  at  a  time  of 
great  excitement,  when  very  many  of  its  members  unfortunately 
cannot  act  calmly  and  temperately  on  any  matter  of  great  interest. 

And  your  Remonstrants  further  and  finally  represent  to  your  Hon- 
orable Bodies  that  the  reason  given  for  the  repeal  or  modification  of 
the  said  law  that  it  is  unconstitutional,  cannot  and  ought  not  to  be 
justly  entertained,  and  even  were  it  so,  it  is  not  sufficient  for  the 
purpose, — inasmuch  as  it  is  peculiarly  the  province  of  the  courts  of 
justice  to  decide  all  such  questions — and  your  Remonstrants  res- 
pectfully suggest  that  the  interference  of  the  Legislature  on  such 
ground  would  more  embarrass  the  questions  that  do  and  may  arise 
upon  the  law,  by  adding  to  those  now  existing  the  very  grave  one 


11 


of  the  right  of  the  Legislature  to  repeal  a  law  of  the  character  of 
that  of  1S14,  without,  and  in  fact  against,  the  concurrence  of  the 
corporation  in  question. 

And  your  Remonstrants  will  ever  pray,  &c. 
By  order  of  the  Rector,  Churchwardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trini- 
ty Church,  in  the  City  of  New-York. 

WILLIAM  BERRIAX,  D.  D.,  Rector. 
Wm.  E.  Duxscomb,  Clerk. 
;       |l.  s.J  Wm.  H.  Harison,  Comptroller. 

I  Churchwardens. 

Thomas  L.  Clark, 
William  Moore, 
Wm.  H.  Ho  BART, 
He>tit  YorxGS, 
Alex.  L.  McDonald, 
Saml.  G.  Raymond, 
G.  C.  Verplanxk, 
John  I.  Morgan, 
David  B.  Ogden, 

Vestrymen. 


SCHEDULE  A. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Rector,  Church- Wardens  and  Vestry  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  St.  Mark's  in  the  Bowery,  in  the 
city  of  New-Yoik,  April  16th,  1812. 
Present — The  Rev.  Doctor  Harris,  Rector. 

Mr.  Ogden,  and  Mr.  Minthorne, 
Wardens. 

Messrs.  Hoffman,       A.  Ogden, 
Turnbull,  Bird, 
Norroway,  Fish, 

Vestrymen. 

Mr.  *Ogden  presented  to  the  Vestry  for  consideration  the  draft  of 
a  letter  to  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  -,ords  following, 
viz: 

* 'William  Ogden  and  Mangle  Minthorne  were  the  church-wardens.  Martin  Hoff- 
man, George  Turnbull,  Anthony  Norrowaj-,  Andrew  Ogden,  Robert  Bird  and  Nicho- 
las Fish  were  the  vestrymen  present.  They  are  all  deceased.  The  vestry,  when  full, 
consisted  often  persons  besides  the  Rector. 


Ada3i  Tredwell, 
E.  W.  Laight, 
Teunis  Quick, 
Peter  A.  Mesier, 
A.  L.  Underhill, 
Wm.  Johnson, 
Philip  Hone, 
w^m.  e.  dukscomb, 
Wm.  H.  Harison, 
Robert  Hyslop, 
Henry  Cotheal, 
Philip  Henry, 


12 


New- York,  April  16,  1812. 

Gentlemen: 

We  believe  that  it  is  eminently  the  duty  of  Christians  to  live  to- 
gether in  brotherly  affection  ;  and  that  the  obligations  to  discharge 
this  duty  lie  with  greater  weight  on  the  members  of  the  same 
Church.  Feeling  as  we  ought  the  full  force  of  this  sentimentj  we 
have  learnt  with  regret,  that  some  of  our  Episcopal  brethren,  assert 
the  claim  of  a  general  right  in  all  the  Episcopal  Churches  on  this 
Island  to  vote  at  your  Elections,  for  Churchwardens  and  Vestry- 
men. Whatever  color  may  be  given  to  this  claim  by  any  ambigu- 
ous words  to  be  found  in  your  charter,  we  sincerely  take  pleasure  in 
declaring  that  the  congregation  of  St.  Mark's  Church,  which  we 
represent,  have  no  desire  to  assert  the  claim,  and  that  we  will,  at 
any  time  hereafter,  cheerfully  unite  with  your  respectable  body  in 
an  application  to  the  Legislature,  if  the  measure  shall  be  thought 
expedient,  for  an  act  to  explain  the  charter,  and  confine  the  right  of 
voting  solely  to  the  congregations  of  the  Churches  under  your  im- 
mediate government ;  and  we  beg  leave  to  add,  that  we  shall  cheer- 
fully unite  in  such  application  as  well  from  the  earnest  wish  we 
have  to  restore  harmony  and  establish  peace  by  removing  the  unea- 
siness which,  we  understand,  the  claim  has  created  in  the  minds  of 
many  of  the  members  of  Trinity  Church,  as  from  the  strong  sense 
we  entertain,  that  the  measure  itself  is  dictated  by  the  natural  fit- 
ness of  things,  and  more  especially  by  the  never  to  be  forgotten  rule 
of  doing  to  others  what  under  similar  circumstances  we  should  like 
to  be  done  to  ourselves. 

With  the  most  respectful  consideration 
We  are.  Gentlemen, 

Your  humble  Servants. 

On  motion.  Resolved^  That  the  same  be  adopted,  and  that  the 
Clerk  ot  this  Vestry  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  Vestry  of  Trinity 
Church  a  copy  of  the  same  under  the  seal  of  this  Corporation. 

Extract  from  the  proceedings  of  the  Vestry  of  St.  Mark's 
Church. 

Nich's.  Fish,  Clerk,    [h.  s  ] 


13 


At  an  adjourned  Meeting  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in 
the  City  of  New-York,  held  in  their  Vestry  office  on  the  14th 
day  of  January,  An.  Dom.  1846. 

The  Special  Committee  appointed  at  the  last  meeting  of  the 
Vestry  on  the  subject  of  an  intended  application  to  the  Legislature 
at  its  present  session,  for  the  repeal  in  whole  or  in  part  of  the 
Act  of  the  25th  January,  1814,  relating  to  this  Corporation,  and 
who  were  instructed  to  report  a  proper  Remonstrance  to  the  Legis- 
lature, presented  such  Remonstrance  prepared  by  them,  which  was 
read,  and  it  was  thereupon  Ordered  that  the  same  be  adopted,  and 
that  it  be  engrossed  and  signed  by  the  Rector,  Comptroller,  and 
Clerk  officially,  and  by  the  Churchwardens  and  Vestrymen,  or  such 
of  them  as  shall  see  fit  to  sign  the  same  •  and  that  the  Comptroller 
and  Clerk  affix  the  seal  of  this  Corporation  thereto,  and  that  the 
same  be  thereupon  forwarded  and  presented  to  the  Legislature. 

Extract  from  the  Minutes, 

Wm.  E.  Dunscomb,  Clerk. 


Your  Memorialists  further  respectfully  represent  that  the  present 
petitioners  for  the  repeal  or  modification  of  the  said  law  of  1814,  are 
some  of  the  same  persons  who  so  last  year  petitioned.  That  the  ap- 
plicants then  chiefly  consisted  of  members  of  a  few,  and  not  exceed- 
ing five  or  six,  religious  corporations  of  the  city  of  New-York,  some 
of  which  have  been  largely  endowed,  and  made  rich  and  indepen- 
dent by,  and  out  of  ihe  property  of  your  Memorialists  ;  and  the 
others  of  which  have  received  from  your  Memorialists,  such  aids  in 
money  as  relieved  them  from  debt  and  embarrassment,  and  to  such 
amounts,  as  must  preclude  all  just  expectation  of  having  future  con- 
tributions voluntarily  made  from  the  same  source.  That,  on  the 
other  hand,  whilst  no  Church  in  its  corporate  capacity,  or  as  a  body, 
joined  in  the  application  for  the  repeal  or  modification  of  the  said 
act,  ten  other  Religious  Corporations  in  the  City  of  New-York,  and 
of  the  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State 
of  New-York,  respectfully  signified  to  the  Honourable  the  Legisla- 
ture, at  the  same  session,  their  earnest  desire  that  there  should  be 
no  interference  whatever  with  the  corporate  rights  of  your  Memo- 
rialists, as  may  appear  by  the  acts  and  proceedings  of  those  Churches, 
respectively,  either  duly  certified  by  the  proper  officers,  or  else 


14 


signed  by  all  the  members  of  their  vestries  present  at  the  meetings, 
and  now  on  the  files  of  the  Honorable  the  Senate,  and  to  which  your 
Memorialists  beg  leave  to  refer.  Thai  in  addition  to  such  remon- 
strances of  the  Church  Corporations,  other  remonstrances  to  the 
same  effect  were  presented  to  the  Legislature  at  the  same  session, 
and  are  now  remaining  on  the  files  of  the  Honorable  the  Senate. 
That  it  appears  that  the  Remonstrances  last  mentioned  were  respec- 
tively signed  and  presented  by  the  male  members  of  the  Corpora- 
lion  of  Trinity  Church  generally,  and  by  825  other  persons,  male 
members  of  tho  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  who  reside  in  the  city 
of  New-York,  and  were  not  of  the  parish  of  Trinity  Church,  and 
who  had,  therefore,  precisely  the  same  rights  as  the  said  applicants 
had,  if  they  had  any  at  all,  under  the  charter  of  your  Memorialists, 
or  the  laws  affecting  it,  and  that  such  remonstrances  were  also 
signed  and  presented  by  several  other  members  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  who  resided  out  of,  but  on  the  confines  of  the 
said  city. 

And  Your  Memorialists  further  respectfully  represent  that  coun- 
sel for  the  Petitioners  were  last  year  heard  before  the  committee  of 
the  Honorable  Senate,  to  which  the  matter  had  been  referred,  and 
that  two  professional  members  of  the  vestry  also  appeared  and  ar- 
gued there  in  behalf  of  your  Memorialists.  That  a  report*  was  made 
to  the  said  Senate  on  the  9th  day  of  April,  1846,  by  the  said  com- 
mittee, recommending  "  that  no  legislative  action  be  had  on  the 
subject,  and  that  the  prayer  of  the  Petitioners  be  denied  and  on 
the  same  day  a  minority  report  f  was  made  by  one  of  the  commit- 
ee,  who  brought  in  a  bill  to  repeal  the  said  act  of  January  25th,  1814 
And  that  the  said  reports  and  bill  were  never  taken  up  and  con- 
sidered by  the  said  Senate,  notwithstanding  your  Memorialists  were 
anxious  for  the  same,  and  by  their  officer  and  agent  repeatedly  re- 
quested and  urged  their  consideration. 

To  this  statement  of  the  occurrences  at  the  last  session  of  the 
Legislature,  your  Memorialists  beg  leave  to  add  and  further  repre- 
sent, that  another  annual  election  of  churchwardens  and  vestrymen 
of  your  Memorialists'  corporation  took  place  whilst  those  proceed- 
ings were  pending,  and  that  the  same  qualifications  which  had  been 
uniformly  required,  since  the  year  1814  inclusive,  were  prescribed 
at  the  said  election,  that  no  resistance  or  objection  was  made  to  such 


•  Senate  Doc  No.  118,  of  IbK.   t  Senate  Doc.  No.  117,  of  1840. 


•  15 


requirement,  anil  that  no  person  appeared  at  such  election  and  de- 
manded permission  to  vote  who  was  not  thus  qualified:  thus  one 
more  year  is  added  to  the  previous  32  of  silent  submission  to,  and 
acquiescence  in  the  said  law. 

Your  Memorialists,  therefore,  humbly  Pray  that  they  may  not  be 
disturbed  in  those  rights  which  they  have  now  so  long  beneficently 
exercised,  but  that  if  there  is  any  doubt  of  the  validity  or  the  con- 
struction of  the  said  law,  the  decision  may  be  left  to  the  rightful 
jurisdiction  of  the  courts  of  our  country. 

And  your  Memorialists  will  ever  pray,  &c. 

By  order  of  the  Rector,  Churchwardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity- 
church,  in  the  City  of  New- York. 

WM.  BERRIAN,  D.  D. 

Rector, 
WM  E.  DUNSCOMB. 

Clerk, 
WM  H.  HARISON, 

Comptroller. 

>  Church-wardens. 

Wm.  Moore, 
Wm.  H.  Hobart, 
Henry  Youngs, 
Alex.  L.  McDonald, 
Samuel  G.  Raymond, 
G.  C.  Verplanck, 
Philip  Henry, 
David  B.  Ogden, 
Anthony  J.  Bleecker. 

Vestrymen. 


[l.  s.] 


Adam  Tredwell, 
E.  W.  Laight, 


Teunis  Quick, 
Peter  A.  Mesfier, 
A.  L.  Underbill, 
Philip  Hone, 
Wm.  E.  Dunscomb, 
Wm.  H.  Harison, 
Robert  Hyslop, 
Henry  Cotheal, 
Thomas  L.  Clark, 


ir.  0 


*  OPINION 

OF 

MESSRS.  TROUP,  HAMILTON  AND  HARISON. 

In  consequence  of  a  resolution  of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church 
of  the  ninth  of  November  instant,  we  have  considered  the  subject 
therein  mentioned,  and  are  of  opinion  that  the  Corporation  of  St. 
MarWs  Church  can  have  no  valid  pretensions^  either  at  law  or  in 
equity,  to  any  part  of  the  property  of  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of 
the  City  of  JYew-York,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  State  of  New-York  ;  but  nevertheless  for  greater 
caution,  we  approve  of  their  taking  from  the  Corporation  of  St. 
Mark's  Church  a  Deed  in  the  form  of  that  marked  A,  when  the  lots 
lately  set  apart  for  that  purpose  are  conveyed  to  the  said  Corpora- 
tion.   New-York,  the  21st  November,  1801. 

Rob't  Troup, 
Alexnnder  Hamilton, 
Rich.  Harison. 


•  See  Parish  Annals,  a  Sermon,  etc.,  by  Henry  Anthem,  D.  D.  New- York:  1815.  pp. 
33  and  34.  , 


IVo.  45. 


m  SENATE,  FEB  20,  1856. 


COMMUNICATION 

Of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New- 
York,  to  the  Honorable  the  Senate  of  the  State  of 
New- York,  in  reply  to  resolutions  of  the  Senate, 
passed  April  13th,  1855. 

To  the  Honorable  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  JVew-YorIc : 

The  rector,  church  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church, 
in  the  city  of  New- York,  having  received  from  the  Clerk  of 
your  honorable  body  a  copy  ol  the  resolutions  of  the  Senate, 
passed  on  the  13th  day  of  April,  1855,  in  the  words  following : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of 
New- York,  be  and  they  are  hereby  required  to  report  to  the 
Senate  of  this  State,  on  or  before  the  seventh  day  of  Janu- 
ary next,  the  number  and  the  names  of  the  persons  entitled, 
under  an  act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
Church,  in  New-York,  and  for  other  purposes,  passed  January 
25th,  1814,  to  vote  at  the  annual  elections  for  church  wardens 
and  vestrymen  of  the  present  corporation  of  Trinity  Church, 
specifying  those  who  vote  as  communicants,  and  those  who  vote 
as  pew  holders  in  the  said  church,  and  the  names  of  the  per- 


I  Senate,  No.  45.] 


1 


2  [Senatb 

sons  so  entitled,  who  did  actually  vote  at  each  of  the  three  last 
annual  elections  held  for  the  choice  of  church  wardens  and 
vestrymen  of  said  corporation;  also 

Resolved,  That  the  said  vestry  be  and  they  are  hereby  directed 
to  report  to  the  Senate  of  this  State,  on  or  before  the  seventh 
day  of  January  next,  the  amount  of  money  expended  by  said 
corporation  in  building  or  in  aiding  and  assisting  to  build  free 
churches  in  the  destitute  portions  of  the  parish  of  Trinity 
Church,  as  originally  constituted  and  declared,  and  the  names 
of  such  churches,  with  the  amount  expended  upon  each;  also 
the  number  and  names  of  the  churches  in  the  city  of  New- York, 
built,  in  whole  or  in  part,  by  the  said  corporation,  within  the 
last  five  years,  and  the  amount  expended  on  each;  the  number 
and  names  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  churches  situated  in  the 
city  of  New-York,  in  feeble  and  necessitous  circumstances, 
which  have  been  aided  and  assisted  by  the  said  corporation 
within  the  last  five  years,  and  the  amount  of  such  aid  and  assist- 
ance, afforded  annually  or  otherwise,  to  each;  also  the  number 
and  names  of  the  churches  in  the  city  of  New-York  endowed  by 
the  said  corporation  within  the  last  five  years,  and  the  amount 
of  such  endowment  in  each  case;  also, 

"  Resolved,  That  the  said  vestry  be  and  are  hereby  required  to 
report  to  the  Senate  of  this  State,  on  or  before  the  seventh  day 
of  January  next,  whether  any,  and  if  any,  what  appropriations 
have  been  made  by  them  during  the  last  three  years  to  institn- 
tions  of  charity,  benevolence  or  learning,  in  the  city  of  New- 
York,  and  the  amount  to  each ;  also. 

Resolved,  That  the  said  vestry  be  and  they  are  hereby 
directed  to  report  to  the  Senate  of  this  State,  Avithin  the  first 
week  of  January  next,  the  estimated  value  of  each  lot  and 
parcel  of  land  owned  by  the  said  corporation  in  the  city  of  New- 
York,  irrespective  of  the  leases  thereon. 

Resolved,  also.  That  said  vestry  report  to  the  Senate  of  this 
State,  on  the  first  week  of  January  next,  a  statement  of  the 
number  of  lots  belonging  to  said  corporation,  the  leases  of  which 
have  expired  within  the  five  years  ending  on  the  first  of  No- 


No.  45.J 


3 


vember,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-five,  and  whether  said  lots 
have  been  re-let,  or  have  been  sold,"    Make  the  following 

REPORT: 

But  before  entering  upon  the  statements  hereinafter  contained, 
the  vestry  beg  leave,  respectfully,  to  aver  that  they  furnish 
the  information  requested  by  the  Senate,  not  as  acknowledging 
the  power  of  the  Senate  to  exact  such  information,  but  in  order 
that  they  may  not  be  deemed  to  be  wanting  in  respect  for  your 
honorable  body,  or  unwilling  to  display  to  the  public  the  state 
of  this  corporation,  its  financial  condition,  and  the  management, 
by  this  vestry,  of  its  property.  They  feel  satisfied  that  the  facts 
presented  in  this  paper  will  remove  any  unfavorable  impression 
detrimental  to  the  interests  of  Trinity  Church,  which  may  have 
been  occasioned  by  representations  which,  it  is  conjectured, 
have  induced  your  honorable  body  to  pass  the  resolutions  above 
contained.  But  being  charged  with  the  care  and  guardianship 
of  a  large  property  and  important  rights,  they  beg  leave, 
respectfully,  to  represent  that  the  requiring  of  such  reports  as 
that  asked  for  by  the  resolutions  of  the  honorable  Senate,  is  not 
justified  by  any  legal  principle,  and  is  oppressive  of  this  corpo- 
ration. If  there  should,  at  any  time,  be  any  just  cause  of  com- 
plaint against  this  corporation,  the  courts  are  open  and  are 
adequate  to  afford  a  remedy;  and  the  entering,  by  the  Legisla- 
ture, upon  an  investigation  into  the  affairs  of  any  single  corpo- 
ration, which  investigation,  if  it  has  any  materiality,  properly 
belongs  to  such  courts,  is  an  assumption  of  their  powers,  and  is 
burdensome  upon  the  corporation  affected,  by  calling  upon  it 
to  justify  itself,  by  laborious  statements,  or  production  of  evi- 
dence to  a  tribunal  which  has  no  power  to  decide.  This  corpo- 
ration has,  within  a  few  years  past,  made  answer  to  two  similar 
calls  for  information  from  the  houses  of  the  Legislature,  the  one 
contained  in  the  resolutions  of  your  honorable  body,  of  the  9th 
day  of  March,  1846,  and  the  other  contained  in  the  resolutions 
of  the  honorable  the  House  of  Assembly,  of  March  4th,  1854. 
There  is  no  provision  in  the  charter  of  this  corporation,  and  no 
general  statute  requiring  it  to  report  to  the  Legislature,  and  be- 
cause this  vestry  have  found  the  answer  to  these  repeated 
requirements  expensive  and  onerous,  and  believe  them  to 


4 


[Senate 


be  an  infringement  of  the  chartered  rights  of  Trinity  Church, 
they  humbly  protest  against  the  right  of  the  Legislature,  or 
either  branch  of  it,  to  call  for  reports  from  this  vestry  relative 
to  the  condition  or  affairs  of  this  corporation. 

In  reference  to  the  inquiry  as  to  the  corporators  of  Trinity 
Church,  the  vestry  state  : 

That  the  total  number  of  the  corporators  is  305,  of  whom  92  are 
communicants,  and  213  are  pew  holders.  The  total  number  of 
communicants,  both  male  and  female,  reported  at  the  last  annual 
convention  of  the  diocese,  was  at  that  time  about  800.  This  was 
shortly  after  the  time  when  the  number  of  the  clergy  of  the 
parish  was  increased  to  nine,  with  a  view  to  promote  the  influ- 
ence of  religion  among  the  poor  residing  in  the  lower  wards  of 
the  city,  and  their  worli  having  then  been  recently  commenced, 
a  considerable  increase  may  be  expected  to  the  number  of  com- 
municants above  reported,  after  a  sufficient  time  shall  have 
elapsed  to  show  the  result  of  their  labors.  A  like  increase 
may  also  be  expected  from  the  persons  worshiping  in  the  new 
Trinity  Chapel  lately  erected,  who  for  the  space  of  one  year  shall 
have  been  members  of  the  congregation  of  that  chapel.  This 
new  chapel  was  principally  built  for  the  accommodation  of  the 
parishioners  and  their  families  wlio  had  been  a  long  time  in  the 
parish,  but  had  removed  too  far  from  the  parish  church  and 
chapels  to  continue  to  worship  therein,  and  thus  by  inducing 
their  return  to  increase  the  number  of  our  constituency.  This 
being  an  ancient  parish,  a  large  number  of  its  pew  owners  have 
deceased,  and  their  pews  are  owned  by  their  families,  many  of 
whom  occupy  them  or  let  them  to  others  for  occupancy.  The 
number  of  such  pews  is  124.  A  number  of  pews  amounting  to 
44  are  also  owned  and  occupied  by  females.  These  classes  of 
pew  owners  are  of  course  not  enumerated  among  the  corporators 
because  they  are  not  entitled  to  vote.  Since  the  present  effort 
was  commenced  for  the  spread  of  the  gospel  among  the  poor  in 
the  lower  wards  of  the  city,  the  churches  there  situated,  viz : 
Trinity  Church,  and  St.  Paul's  and  St.  John's  Chapels,  are  well 
attended,  and  their  congregations  are  increasing.  The  congre- 
gation of  the  new  Trinity  Chapel  is  full.    To  further  this  effort 


No.  45.J  5 

among  the  poor,  the  vestry  have  kept  133  pews  belonging  to  the 
church,  or  of  which  it  has  the  use,  free  for  occupancy  by  all. 
These  pews  are  many  of  them  among  the  best  in  the  church  and 


chapels,  and  are  as  follows,  to  wit : 

Church  pews. 

No.  in  Trinity  Church,   43 

"    St.  Paul's  Chapel,   36 

"    St.  John's  Chapel,   22 

Pev;s  of  which  the  Church  has  the  use  for  one  year. 

In  Trinity  Church,   13 

In  St.  Paul's  Chapel,   13  ' 

In  St.  John's  Chapel,   6 

•  133 

These  133  pews  afford   665  free  seats. 

Besides  these  there  are  in  the  aisles  of  Trinity 

Church  and  Trinity  Chapel  about   400    "  " 

Making  the  total  number  of  free  seats,   1065 


and  at  all  evening  services  all  seats  are  free. 

The  corporators  voting  at  the  annual  election  for  church 
wardens  and  vestrymen  have  been  generally  few  for  a  long 
series.  The  cause  of  this  may  be  found  in  the  confidence  re- 
posed in  the  discreet  and  prudent  management  of  the  affairs  of  the 
vestry,  (a  body  consisting  of  23  persons)  and  in  the  fact  that  in 
the  absence  of  any  contest  the  corporators  have  not  deemed  it 
important  to  exercise  their  privilege  of  voting,  except  to  a 
limited  extent. 

The  number  of  voters  at  the  annual  elections  in  each  of  the 
years  next  mentioned  were  respectively  as  follows,  to  wit : 

In  1846,   97 


"  1847,   43 

"  1848,   37 

"  1819,   54 

"  1850,   23 


6 


[Senate 


In  1851, 
"  1852, 
«  1853, 
«  1854, 
"  1855, 


65 
29 
127 
26 
32 


In  reference  to  the  inquiry  as  to  the  estimated  value  of  each 
lot  and  parcel  of  land  owned  by  this  corporation  in  the  city  of 
New- York,  the  vestry  annex  hereto  a  schedule  marked  A,  show- 
ing as  to  each  lot  its  situation;  its  value  with  the  buildings 
thereon  (the  property  of  the  tenants)  as  assessed  in  1855,  by  the 
officers  of  the  city  for  the  purpose  of  taxation  (except  such  as  are 
exempt  from  taxation,  which  are  particularly  noted) ;  the  estimated 
portion  of  such  value  for  the  buildings;  the  net  value  of  the  lot 
deducting  the  buildings,  irr^pective  of  the  leases;  the  annual 
ground  rent  reserved  to  the  church ;  the  expiration  of  the  term, 
and  the  present  value  of  the  reversion  and  of  the  ground  rents 
to  the  church.  From  this  schedule  it  will  ai-)pear  that  the  total 
value  of  the  property  embraced  therein,  irrespective  of  the 
leases  and  of  the  buildings,  is  |2,668,710.  The  total  amount  of 
the  annual  rents  thereof  is  $71,301.97;  and  the  present  total 
value  of  the  reversions  of  the  church  therein,  including  present 
value  of  ground  rents,  is  $1,984,322.62.  Within  the  period  of 
the  five  years  ending  1st  of  November,  1855,  referred  to  in  the  res- 
olutions of  your  honorable  body,  the  leases  of  84  lots  belonging 
to  this  corporation  have  expired.  Of  these  47  lots  have  been 
re-let,  and  the  reversions  in  fee  of  37  have  been  sold.  And 
during  the  same  period  76  other  lots  of  the  church  have  been 
sold  cither  to  the  tenants,  or,  the  lots  being  vacant,  to  other 
purchasers;  making  the  total  number  of  lots  sold  within  said 
five  years  one  hundred  and  tliirteen. 

That  the  Senate  may  be  fully  informed  of  the  resources  of  this 
corporation,  and  of  the  charges  to  which  they  are  applied  or  are 
properly  applicable,  the  vestry  do  not  content  themselves  with 
giving  the  information  asked  by  the  resolutions  of  your  honora- 
ble body. 


The  Senate  will  perceive  that  the  whole  present  value  of  the 


No.  45.] 


7 


landed  estate  of  Trinity  Church  exclusive  of  the  present  value 
of  rents,  is  $1,446,371. 71. 

In  the  management  of  the  property  of  this  corporation  it  has 
been  the  policy  of  the  vestry  for  a  long  series  of  years,  by  gifts 
of  lots  or  by  proceeds  of  sales,  as  opportunity  afforded,  to  aid 
other  churches  in  the  city  of  New-York  and  in  various  other 
parts  of  the  State,  and  to  found  or  assist  by  the  same  means  in- 
stitutions of  learning  or  charity,  or  to  contribute  to  the  mainte- 
nance and  support  of  the  organization  of  the  church  in  this  State; 
and  by  reason  of  these  gifts  and  sales  the  landed  estate  has  been  and 
is  gradually  diminishing  in  extent,  so  that  now,  out  of  the  lots 
originally  owned  by  Trinity  church, computed  as  the  vestry  believe 
accurately  at  2068,  not  more  than  691  remain.  But  owing  to 
the  peculiar  nature  of  the  property,  and  the  fact  that  the  lessees 
alone  offer  to  purchase  leased  lots,  sales  have  at  times  been  slow; 
and  the  vestry,  mainly  in  order  to  meet  the  pressing  needs  of 
other  churches  and  institutions,  has  incurred  a  large  debt  in  an- 
ticipation of  such  sales.  This  debt  on  the  1st  May,  1855,  the 
end  of  the  last  financial  year,  amounted  to  $648,913;  and  in 
effect  for  the  most  part  represents  a  gift  of  an  equal  amount  in 
value  of  laud  to  other  churches  or  institutions,  for  it  must  be 
provided  for  out  of  sales  of  such  lands.  The  lots  included 
in  the  foregoing  valuation  comprise  all  the  real  estate  of  this 
corporation,  excepting  so  much  as  is  occupied  by  churches  or 
grave-yards. 

Besides  this  real  estate,  at  the  end  of  the  last  financial  year  it 
possessed  bonds  and  mortgages,  taken  from  purchasers  upon  sales 
of  land,  amounting  to  $199,469.41. 

Thus  the  whole  productive  estate  of  Trinity  Church  is  cor- 
rectly stated  as  follows : 

Real  estate,   $1,446,371  71 

Bonds  and  mortgages,   199,469  41 

Cash  in  bank  at  the  end  of  the  last  financial  year,        19,399  46 


Deducting  the  debt, 


$1,665,240  58 
648,913  00 


Shows  the  whole  nett  value  to  be 


$1,016,327  58 


8  [Senate 

This  statement  will  make  it  manifest  that  this  vestry  has  done 
its  utmost  to  make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  this  corpora- 
tion available  for  the  founding  or  support  or  promotion  of  reli- 
gious, charitable  or  educational  institutions  or  purposes.  Not 
for  her  parish  nor  tor  her  churches  has  she  thus  disposed  of  this 
estate,  nor  has  she  for  herself  or  her  own  people  incurred  this 
large  debt;  but  for  other  parts  of  the  church  of  God — to  spread 
his  gospel  for  the  increase  of  true  knowledge,  and  to  diffuse  the 
blessings  of  charity,  Trinity  Church  has  hastened  to  dispense 
abroad  out  of  her  own  bounds,  the  surplus  which  she  could 
spare.  It  has  been  said  by  persons  belonging  to  other  churches 
in  the  city  of  New- York,  not  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
Church,  that  this  excess  has  been  given  all  over  the  State,  and 
that  it  ought  to  have  been  distributed  within  that  city.  But  not 
so  have  this  vestry  read  their  duty.  They  have  exercised  a  dis- 
cretion (not  limited  in  its  application  by  law  to  any  section  of 
the  State,)  to  give  where  it  seemed  most  for  the  advantage  of 
the  church  to  which  they  belong.  They  have  the  greater  inter- 
est and  solicitude  concerning  the  city  of  New-York,  and  espe- 
cially those  parts  of  it  which  are  within  the  bounds  of  this 
parish ;  but  it  has  never  been  their  policy  to  confine  their  distri- 
bution of  the  surplus  property  of  this  corporation  to  the  churches 
in  this  city. 

The  vestry  have  thus  endeavored  to  show  the  present  condi- 
tion of  the  capital  of  Trinity  Church,  and  the  disposition  hith- 
erto made  of  it.  But  they  desire  further  to  exhibit  the  present 
income  of  the  church  and  the  purposes  to  which  it  is  devoted 


and  is  applicable. 

The  revenue  of  the  church  then  is  as  follows  : 

Rents  from  real  estate  as  per  schedule  A,   $71,301  97 

Pew  rents  (estimated  at),   11,163  50 

Interest  on  bonds  and  mortgages  ($199,469.41)  at 

rates  varying  from  6  to  7  per  cent.,   13,962  85 

Amounting  in  the  whole  to,  ,   $96,428  32 


From  this  must  be  discharged  the  following  annu- 
ally recurring  expenses : 


No.  45.] 


9 


'  Interest  on  $648,913  of  debt,  at  rates 

varying  from  5  to  7  per  cent,. . .  $41 ,895  51 

Expenses  of  parish  for  schools  and 

visitation  and  relief  of  the  poor,  3,850  00 

Salaries  to  clergymen  and  to  officers 

of  this  corporation,   40,300  00 

Expense  of  maintaining  choirs  and 
music  in  four  churches,  and  re- 
pairs and  supplies,   17,276  00 

Annual  allowances  to  other  churches 
now  made  by  the  vestry. 

To  the  Church  of  All  Saints,  N.  Y.  $500 
"       "        Holy  Evangelists, 

N.  T.,   1,200 

"       "        St.  Stephens,  N.Y.  500 
"       "        The  Nativity,  "  1,025 
"       "        St.  Clements,  "  400 
"       "        St.  Philips,     "  400 
"       "        St.  Peters,      "  400 
»  Christ  Church,                  "  400 
To  the  Church  of  St.  Andrews,  "  300 
"       "        Holy  Apostles"  300 
«       "         The  Epiphany"  300 
"       "        St.  Matthew,  "  500 
"  Zion  Church,                     "  300 
"  Church  of  St.  Marks,  Williams- 
burgh,..;   300 

"  St.  Luke's  Church,  N.  Y.,   2 , 100 

"  Church  of  St.  George  the  Martyr, 

N.  Y.,   1,100 

"  Mission  Chiu-ch  among  Seamen, 

N.  Y.,   800 

^<  Chui-ch  ot  the  Good  Shepherd, 

N.  Y.,   200 

"  Church  of  St.  John,  the  Baptist, 

N.  Y.,  •..  200 

"  Church  of  The  Transfiguration, 

N.  Y.,   500 


10 


[ Senate 


To  Church  of  the  Holy  Martyrs,N.Y. 

lit /inn 

ilie  Advent, 

OA  A 

bt.  Mary, 

on  A 
ZOO 

u 

All  Angels,  " 

OA  A 

zOO 

St.  John  the  Evange- 

list, N.  Y.,  

MO 

St.  Paul's  Church,  Williamsb'g, 

■i/in 
oto 

Church  of  the  Intercession,  N.  Y. 

O  AA 

zOU 

a 

St.  Timothy,  " 

u 

The  Holy  Innocents, 

N.  Y.,  

^AA 

a 

The  Messiah,  N.  Y.,.. 

O  AA 

a 

^AA 

u 

St.  Cornelius,  Gover- 

nor's Island,  N.  Y., 

onn 

1  Ann 

Church  of  St.  George,  Flushing, 

L.I.,  

4uU 

ii 

St.  Paul,  Owego,  . . . 

iO 

(( 

St.  John,  Clayville, 

t  AA 

100 

(( 

a 

St.  John,  Monticello, 

100 

a 

a 

Zion  Church,  Sandy 

Hill,  Wash'g'n  co.. 

140 

 16,875  00 

Annuities  to  widows  and  families  of  de- 
ceased clergymen,   3,300  00 

For  support  of  mission  in  Africa,   250  00 

 123,746  51 

$27,318  19 


It  is  apparent  that  in  the  present  position  of  their  affairs  it  is 
not  in  the  power  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  to  render  as- 
sistance to  any  great  extent  to  other  churches,  the  want  of  which, 
this  vestry  conjectures,  has  prompted  an  application  to  your 
honorable  body,  and  has  been  the  remote  cause  of  the  action  to 
which  this  communication  is  a  response.  And  the  same  cause, 
the  inability  to  distribute  a  surplus  which  the  vestry  did  not 


No.  45.] 


11 


possess,  has  limited  the  appropriations  of  money  to  the  relief  of 
other  chirrches  for  the  five  years  referred  to  in  the  resolutions, 
in  like  manner  as  it  is  a  restraint  for  this  year.  Tlie  debt  has 
not  within  that  time  been  diminished  but  increased,  whilst  the 
vestry  has  sold  as  much  land  as  there  was  demand  for.  More- 
over, demands  of  a  different  kind  press  upon  the  vestry.  All 
but  one  of  the  churches  of  this  cori^oration  are  situated  in  the 
lower  part  of  the  city,  surrounded  by  the  poor,  the  ignorant, 
and  the  emigrant;  a  district  which  (with  the  single  exception  of 
a  floating  chapel  for  seamen)  all  other  churches  and  congrega- 
tions of  our  communion,  and  with  few  exceptions  of  other  com- 
munions, have  deserted.  The  duty  has  therefore  fallen  upon 
Trinity  Church  to  gather  the  people  of  this  district,  who  belong 
to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  into  four  churches  :  Trinity 
Church,  St.  Paul's  Chapel,  St.  John's  Chapel  and  St.  George's,  in 
Beekman  street,  to  minister  to  them  the  holy  oflGLces  of  religion ; 
to  aid  and  to  instruct  them,  and  to  that  end  to  establish 
and  maintain  schools  and  to  devise  and  execute  a  judicious  sys- 
tem of  alms-giving,  and  of  the  visitation  and  giving  advice  to 
the  poor,  through  clerical  and  lay  assistance  and  labor.  On 
such  plans  for  the  good  of  the  poor  has  the  vestry  now  entei-ed. 
They  have  been  in  part  devised  and  in  part  executed,  and  fur- 
ther measures  for  the  attainment  of  the  same  ends  are  yet  in 
contemplation.  Hence  must  arise  a  considerable  increase  of  the 
annual  expenses  of  Trinity  Church  for  the  benefit  of  her  own 
people,  and  a  proportionate  want  of  power  to  respond  to  the 
applications  for  aid  from  other  congregations.  To  such  appli- 
cations she  has  ever  been  willing  to  respond,  regulating  her  gifts 
by  her  ability  and  her  judgment  of  what  was  required  for  the 
good  of  the  church ;  but  she  has  never  been  able  to  keep  pace 
with  the  unreasonable  and  exaggerated  notions  both  of  the  duty 
of  her  vestry  and  of  the  value  of  her  estate  which  have  long 
been  entertained  by  many  members  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
church. 

It  has  already  been  stated  in  this  communication  that  this  cor- 
poration has,  by  gifts  and  grants  of  money  and  land  made  from 
time  to  time  for  a  long  series  of  years,  greatly  diminished  its 
estate.  The  vestry  now  proceed  to  make  briefly  a  statement  of 
such  gifts  and  grants,  not,  however,  confining  themselves  to  thg 


12 


[Senate 


periods  or  to  the  objects  specified  in  the  resolutions  of  your  hon- 
orable body,  and  the  vestry  beg  leave  to  express  the  hope  that 
the  information  they  have  thus  afforded,  both  that  in  direct 
response  to  the  inquiries  of  the  Senate,  and  that  not  required  by 
the  resolutions  herein  inserted,  may  be  satisfactory  to  your  hon- 
orable body. 

This  corporation  made  the  donations  of  property  or  land  to 
free  churches  situated  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  for  the 
purposes  and  within  the  years  next  hereinafter  respectfully  stated, 
to  wit : 

1807.    St.  Michael's  Church,  to  aid  in 


building  the  church,   $2,000  00 

1809-13.    To  St.  Michael's  and  St.  James' 

Churches,  for  their  support,..  2,000  00 

1813.    St.   Michael's   and   St.  James' 

Churches,   1 ,400  00 

1813.    St.  Michael's  and   St.  James' 

Churches,   900  00 

1809.    Grant  of  six  lots  of  ground  in 

Chambers,  Vesey  and  Warren 

streets  to  same  churches. 
1832-47.    To  the  city  Mission  Society  in 

annual  allowances  for  the  sup- 


port of  several  free  churches. 


of  which  such  society  were  the 

owners  and  had  the  charge,. . .  22,500  00 

The  Church  of  the  Nativity  : 
1834-35.    To  aid  in  building  the  church,  $5,000  00 
"        Payments  to  the  same  for  its 

support,   12,111  00 

1847^9.    To  aid  in  building  the  Church 

on  a  new  site,   9,000  00 

  26,111  00 

Churches  for  seamen  : 
1844-55.    For  their  support,   6,100  00 


No.  45.] 


13 


Church  of  St.  Cornelius,  Governor's  ■ 
Island,  for  soldiers : 
1846.    To  aid  in  building  the  church,..      $500  00 
1847-55.    For  the  support  of  the  church,    1,500  00 


|2,000  00 


The  Church  of  the  Good  Shepherd : 
1850-55.  For  the  support  of  the  church,  2,250  00 

The  Church  of  the  Epiphany  : 
1847-50.    For  the  support  of  the  church,  $2 ,375  00 
1848.    To  save  the  church  from  sale  un- 
der foreclosure,   6,500  00 

  8,875  00 

The  Church  of  the  Holy  Evangelists  : 

1847.  To  save  the  church  from  sale  un- 
der foreclosure,  $5,466.10, less 
proceeds  of  subsequent  sale  of 
Vandewater  Street  Church, 
$1,250.64,   4,215  46 

1847-55.    For  support  of  the  church,         3,975  00 

Paid  for  the  purchase  of  St. 
George's  church,  in  Beekman 
street,  now  occupied  by  the 
Church  of  the  Holy  E vangeli  sts , 
and  for  charges  upon  such  pro- 
perty,  30,660  33 

The  estimated  value  of  a  release 
executed  by  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  Church,  of  lots  of  land 
belonging  to  the  corporation  ol 
St.  George's  Church,  from  cer- 
tain conditions,  the  release  from 
which  formed  part  of  the  con- 
sideration upon  which  the  latter 
church  agreed  with  Trinity 
Church  to  convey  to  such  person 
as  she  should  appoint,  the  pro- 
perty occupied  by  St.  George's 
Chui'ch,  in  Beekman  street. 
This  property  was,  after  such 


14  [Senate 

agreement,  by  appointment  of 
the  corporation  of  Trinity 
Church,  conveyed  to  the  Cliurch 
of  the  Holy  Evangelists,  with- 
out payment  of  any  considera- 
tion by  them,  but  upon  their 
executing  a  mortgage  upon  such 
property  to  Trinity  Church  for 
$50,000,  the  amount  agreed 

upon  between  them,  $25,000  00 

  $63,850  79 

The  Church  of  St.  Mary's  : 


1836-55.    For  support  of  the  church, . .  7,789  13 

Free  Church  in  East  Broadway  : 
1855.  Towards  the  support  of  the  church,  100  00 

The  Church  of  the  Messiah  : 

1838-55.    For  the  support  of  the  church,$2,550  00 

1850.    To  aid  in  fitting  up  place  of 

worship,   100  00 

  2,650  00 

The  Church  of  St.  Barnabas,  (the  first 
church  of  that  name,)  : 
1850-53.    For  its  support,   300  00 

The  Second  Church  of  St.  Barnabas  : 
1853-54.    For  support  of  the  church,..  400  00 


The  Church  of  the  Holy  Martyr's  : 
]  848-50.    For  the  support  of  the  church,$l  ,700  00 
1850-55.    In  annual  payments  of  $200 

each,  to  enable  the  church  to 

pay  the  expense  of  altering  the 

church,  and  of  increasing  the 

number  of  sittings,   1,000  00 

  2,700  00 

The  Church  of  St.  Judas  : 
1850-53.    For  the  support  of  the  church,  800  00 

The  Church  of  the  Holy  Innocents  : 
1853-55.    For  the  support  of  the  church,   $650  00 


No.  45.]  15 

1855.    To  pay  an  assessment  upon  the 

church,   $200  00 

"       To  save  the  church  from  sale  un- 
der foreclosure,   590  57 

"       For  the  support  of  the  church,. .     750  00 

  $2,190  57 

The  Church  of  St.  John,  the  Evan- 
gelist : 

185.3-55.    For  the  support  of  the  church,  "400  00 

The  Church  of  St.  Ann's  for  deaf  mutes  : 
185a-55.    For  the  support  of  the  church,  1 ,300  00 

The  Church  of  All  Angels  : 
1850-55.    For  the  support  of  the  church,  1,050  00 

The  Church  of  St.  Matthews : 
1847-55.    For  the  support  of  the  church,  2,925  00 

The  Church  of  St.  Simons  : 
1845-55.    For  the  support  of  the  church,  2,000  00 


$172,590  92 

Within  the  five  years  last  past  this  corporation  has  made  the 
gifts  to  other  churches  in  the  city  of  New-Tork,  not  free,  and 
for  the  purposes  next  hereinafter  stated : 

Church  of  St.  Stephens  for  its  support,                   $2,000  00 

"          St.  James,                   "                            1 ,800  00 

Zion  Church,                   «          "                            1,200  00 

Church  of  St.  Andrews,     "          "                          1 ,200  00 

"          St.  Clements,    "          "                            1,600  00 

«          St.  Lukes,        "          "                           4,500  00 

«          All  Saints,       "          "                            2,000  00 

«          St.  Phillips,     «          "                          1,600  00 

"          St.  Peters,        "          "                            1,600  00 

"          The  Holy  Apostles,      "                          1 , 500  00 

«          St.  George,  the  Martyr,  "                             300  00 

"          The  Annunciation,       "                         26,800  00 

"          The  Advent,               "                             750  00 

"         The  Intercession,         "                            400  00 


16  [Senate 

Church  of  Emanuel,  for  its  support,   $6,718  00 

"          St.  John,  the  Baptist,    "    800  00 

"          The  Transfiguration,     "    2,750  00 

"          St.  Timothy,                "    400  00 

"          The  Redeemer,            "    500  00 


$58,418  00 

Together  with  the  assumption,  by  this  corporation,  of  the 
payment  of  the  interest  of  |5&,418-and  $9,000,  for  which  this 
church  is  mortgaged. 

No  other  amounts  have  been  given  or  expended  by  this  cor- 
poration for  other  churches  situated  in  the  city  of  New-York 
during  the  specified  period. 

Within  the  same  period  the  vestry  under  authority  derived 
from  an  act  of  the  Legislature,  have  purchased  land  in  Twenty- 
fifth  street  in  the  city  of  New- York,  and  have  built  thereon  a 
chapel  styled  Trinity  Chapel,  at  a  cost  for  building  and  site  of  • 
$227,164,82. 

It  is  now  finished,  and  divine  service  has  been  performed 
therein  since  the  17th  April,  1855. 

During  the  same  period  Trinity  Church  has  made  the  grants 
and  appropriations  to  other  churches  situated  in  difierent  parts 
of  the  State  out  of  the  city  of  New-York,  which  are  next  stated, 
that  is  to  say. 


To  churches  in  Albany       county,   $1,000  00 

"  Chautauque  "    1,050  00 

«  Columbia  "    6,250  00 

"  Dutchess  "    1,900  00 

"  Greene  "    1,800  00 

«  Herkimer  "    300  00 

«  Jefierson  "    600  00 

«  Kings  "    13,400  00 

«  Livingston  "    400  00 

«  Madison  "    200  00 

«  Oneida  "    3,500  00 

«  Onondaga    250  00 


No.  45.]  17 


To  churches  in  Orange        county,   $2,400  00 

"  Oswego  "    200  00 

Otsego  "    250  00 

«  Queens  "    2,000  00 

«  Rensselaer  "    1,500  00 

«  Richmond  "    1,200  00 

«  Rockland  "    300  00 

«  Schoharie  "    500  00 

«  St.  Lawrence  "    712  50 

«  Saratoga  "    1,000  00 

«  Suffolk  "    1,500  00 

«  Sullivan  "    600  00 

<'  Tioga  "    490  00 

«  Ulster  "    300  00 

«  Washington  "    1,700  00 

"  Wayne  "    1,550  00 

"  Westchester  "    2,000  00 


$48,852  50 


During  the  three  years  preceding  the  13th  day  of  April,  1855, 
Trinity  Church  has  made  the  following  and  no  other  appropria- 
tions to  institutions  of  charity,  benevolence  and  learning  in 
the  city  of  New- York : 

Grants  of  burial  plots  in  Trinity  Cemetery. 
To  the  orphan  asylum  a  plot  containing  621  square  feet. 

To  the  society  for  the  relief  of  aged  and  indigent  females,  a 
plot  containing  300  square  feet. 

To  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Mutual  Benefit  Society,  a  plot 
containing  600  square  feet. 

To  Christ  Church,  a  plot  to  be  selected. 

To  the  Orphans'  Home,  a  plot  to  be  selected. 

The  inquiiy  of  the  Senate  relates  to  a  time  when  the  proceeds 
of  sales  of  land  have  been  in  a  great  measure  required  for  the 
purpose  of  affording  increased  church  accommodation  for  the 

[Senate,  No.  45.]  2 


18 


[Senate 


congregations  of  Ti'inity  Church,  and  when  the  expense  of  main- 
taining and  performing  the  manifokl  offices  and  duties  connected 
with  such  a  charge  as  falls  upon  this  church  has  greatly  in- 
creased. But  the  following  condensed  statement  will  lead  to  a 
just  estimate  of  the  unvarying  policy,  governed  by  which  this 
corporation  has  from  an  early  day  continually  dispensed  abroad 
the  property  with  which  it  was  endowed. 


From  the  year  1790  to  the  15th  February, 

Church  gave  and  appropriated 

In  Iota. 

To  churches  in  the  city  of  New- York,  not 

free,   122 

"  Albany  county,  

"  Allegany  "   

"  Cattaraugus  "   

"  Cayuga  "   

"  Chatauque  "   

"  Chemung  "   

"  Chenango  "   

"  Columbia  "   

«  Cortland  "   

"  Delaware  "   

"  Dutchess  "   

"  Essex  "   

"  Franklin  "   

"  Fulton  "   

"  Genesee  "   

"  Greene  "   

"  Herkimer  "   

"  Jefferson  "   

"  Kings  "    2 

"  Livingston  "   

"  Madison  "   

"  Monroe  "   

"  Montgomery  "   

"  Niagara  "   

«  Oneida  "    4 


1855,  Trinity 


In  money. 


$493,125 

70 

1  Q 

00 

Ron 

fin 

1 

I 

uu 

,  <  uu 

QOrt 

Qon 

oUU 

Q 

■inn 

AA 

7 

C\(\ 

nn 
uu 

1 

,650 

uu 

21 

,150 

00 

400 

00 

400 

00 

400 

00 

1 

,500 

00 

10 

,300 

00 

7 

,250 

00 

2 

,700 

00 

30 

,410 

00 

2 

,500 

00 

500 

00 

4 

,700 

00 

2 

,000 

00 

1 

,600 

00 

2 

,100 

00 

No.  45.J 


19 


In  lots.  In  money. 

To  churches  in  Onondaga    county,   $5,950  00 

"  Ontario  "    4,050  00 

"  Orleans  "    2,500  00 

"  Orange  "    6,975  00 

«  Oswego  "    4,025  00 

"  Otsego  "    3,070  00 

«  Putnam  «    1,800  00 

"  Queens  "                     13  11,550  00 

"  Rensselaer  "  ......  9,250  00 

«  Richmond  "    5,500  00 

"  Steuben  "    1,000  00 

«  Seneca  "  .  .•   2,050  00 

«  St.  Lawrence  "    5,750  00 

»  Saratoga  "    4,523  80 

«  Schenectady  "    4,100  00 

«  Suffolk  «    3,100  00 

«  Sullivan  «    1,500  00 

"  Tioga  "    1,270  00 

«  Tompkins  "    350  00 

"  Ulster  «    3,000  00 

"  Washington  "    2,950  00 

«  Wayne  "    3,450  00 

"  Westchester  "                       5  15,900  00 

«  Wyoming  "    300  00 

«  Yates  "    1,000  00 


Lots,   146     $721,419  00 


and  from  the  year  1748  to  this  time  they  have  given 

For  the  general  purposes  and  advance- 
ment of  the  church  and  of  religion,  35  lots  and    $19,652  00 

For  general  and  public  purposes, ... .   17  "     "  750  00 

To  institutions  of  learning  and  charity 

schools,  115  "     "       « 5, 776  87 

And  leased  for  63  years,  free  of  rent, .     5  " 

For  the  support  of  the  Episcopate  and 
and  church  organizations  and  socie- 
ties,  72,988  58 


20 


[Senate 


Annuities  and  donations  to  aged  and 
infirm  clergymen,  and  to  widows 

and  families  of  deceased  clergymen,  126 ,934  38 

Being  a  total  for  tlie  purposes  last 

enumerated, of  172  lots  and  $286,111  83 


Thus  has  this  corporation  administered  its  estate,  freely  grant- 
ing it  for  the  spread  of  religion  in  all  parts  of  the  State  for  the 
support  of  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  the  succor  of  their 
families,  and  for  the  aid  and  endowment  of  institutions  of  learn- 
ing. It  has  for  these  purposes  paid  and  appropriated  in  money 
$1,287,392.75,  and  given  a  large  numer  of  lots  of  land;  by  these 
means  diminishing  its  property  to  one-third  its  original  extent. 

The  vestry  have,  in  this  communication,  ventured  to  give  a 
more  complete  statement  of  the  condition  and  acts  of  the  church 
than  is  expressly  called  for  by  the  resolutions  of  your  honorable 
body,  because  they  deemed  it  expedient  for  the  more  perfect 
justification  of  this  corporation,  and  because  they  were  confident 
that  the  Senate  would  receive  it  as  an  answer  more  satisfactory 
than  a  more  limited  return. 

WM.  E.  DUNSCOMB,  Comptroller. 


No.  45.] 


ill 


3 


If 

IPii 

I  I 

iii 

Mf! 

m 


t 


0}  saoisj3A3j  JO  anxTjj, 

21 

£ 

it 

1 

f 

For  the  whole  of  Burr  lease  as  above  stated, . . . 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

aqi  JO  9Ai}03ds3jjj 
sSurpimq  Saponp 
-ap-cegiaianiBA  ^a^j 

ilillligliiiiiiPJlilil 

•sSmpnnq  3q> 

ilEiiiiiilliilliimil 

joj  aniBA  passassB 
JO  aoiyod  pojutuijsa 

•sju^nsj  aqi 
JO  i}j3doid  aq;  Sut 
-aqjan^l  aqi  'ccgX 
ni  sSaipimq  pan  joi 
JO  amBA  passassB  ssojq 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliilil 

Between  what  streets. 

Variok  and  MoDougal, 
do 

do 
do 

Varick     and  Hudson,, 
do 

do  1, 

do  ' 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

Hudson  and  Greenwich, 
do 

•iaajisjoapjg 

•laajis 
jBqii     no  gaiiuojj 

■OS.  'sstiOH 

22 


[SenaW 


•qDinqo  aq"} 


:  00  »o 


S5s  g  sssSBsSSIIsisiSS; 


1 


I 


gq}  JO  aAiiaadsaui 
sSaipiinq  Sai^onp 


■sSaipiinq  oq'j 
JO  uopiod  paiuuijisa 


•stuDaai  aq? 
JO  ifijadojd  aqi  3a; 
-aq  J9HU1  aq}  '5?8T 
a;  sSaipi;nq  pais  ^oi 
JO  aniBA  passassu  ssoio 


1 


;oo  ^  °  o  o  o  ooo  oo  o  o         ooo  o 


oo  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 


iirriiiiliiiiiiiiiieri 


Mi 


III 


mmmmmmm^ 
'iiiiiiriTiiFfiMii 


:oo  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 


•}aoi)Sjo  apig 


I'sqii    uo  Sai^aoij 


oo  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 


•0^  asnojj 


No.  45.] 


23 


o 

$1,227  77 
1.276  88 
1,227  77 
1,227  77 
1,276  88 
1,276  88 
1,915  32 
1,-173  32 
1,571  54 
1,325  99 
883  99 
1,571  64 
1,375  10 
1,325  99 
1,031  32 
1,375  10 

= o oo oo o o oo o coooo 

oooooaooeooooooooooooo 
•o  •§•§■§•§•§  •§•§•§•§•§ -o  •§ -o -o -O    -c -o -o -u -c 

t 

ooooooooooooooo^ 

iiiiillilllliliiiilill 

i 

E 

g       §  §  ?  ^  g  §  5 

iiJjjipijiSl|i| 

s 

§S25SSi§§§ti§§5§g§5Sgg 

,0_=  O^X  X  S        O  ^  -        "0^"^  Sx^O  O  CD  =  t-CC  O 

g 

iipjiip.iy.iiii 

i 

Varick  and  McDougal, . 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

Varick  and  Hudson, . . . 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

1  °  °  o  o  o 

1 

°.§^oooc  c  oc  o  o  o  o  oo 

> 

24 


[Senate 


<y}  saoisi3A3j  JO  sujbjV 

$1,129  55 
»  1,227  77 
687  55 
736  66 
736  66 
1,424  21 
1,325  99 
1,375  10 
1,227  77 
834  88 
982  21 
1  ,129  55 
1,080  44 
1,178  66 
1,178  66 
883  99 
1,031  32 
1,031  32 
1,031  32 
785  77 
785  77 
785  77 
736  66 
1      1,178  66 

When  term  ex- 
pires. 

1 

1  =  00^  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  00 

Annual  ground  rent. 

1" 

1 

g  oo  oo  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  oo  oo  c  o  o  oo  o^ 

i 

1 

1  o  o  o  °  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

1 

oqi  JO  aAipadssjji 
sSuipimq  Suijonp 
-ap  'ggsi  ni  anysA 

iiiiiiiiigiiiiiiiisiiiii 

■sSaipimq  aq; 
aoj  aniBA  passassu 
JO  uoi^aod  paiBUiiisa 

$1,200 
1,000 
900 
600 
500 
1,100 
500 
900 
3,000 
1,600 
1,500 
2,100 
800 
4,600 
4,600 
1,800 
2,200 
2,200 
2,400 
2,400 
2,400 
2,600 
2,500 
2,600 

•sjmsaai  aq't 
JO  iCiJadoid  aqi  3at 
-aq  .lanni  8qi  '?58l 
m  s3uipimq  puB  loj 
JO  anitjA  passassB  ssoig 

1,  $3,500 
3,500 
2,300 
2,000 
2,000 
4,000 
3,200 
3, 700 
3,  500 
3,300 
3,500 
4,400 
3,000 
7,000 
7,000 
3,600 
4,300 
4,300 
4,500 
4,000 
4,000 
4,200 
4,000 
5,000 

Betweeu  what  streets. 

Hudson  and  Greenwic! 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

Varick  and  Hudson, . . . 
do  do 
do  do 
do  t'o 

]      do  do 

'       do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
Varick  and  McDougal, . 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

•'jaaa'js  jo  opig 

•^aajis 
tuqM    uo  Soijaojj 

> 

•0^  asnoH 

No.  45.] 


25 


II 


00,0  00,^0  0  0  0^^00  ooooo^o^ooooooooooo  000000 


.goooo  00  000  00  00  00  00000  00  000^0  00  00  o     000000  ;2 

1 

.s 


liilifiliiifi 


rriilllil 


liiiiiiiiiii  ifflli 


iiiiiiiiiiifi 


1 


00  0000000000000  ooooooog 

|.§.§oo  000000 

1 

00        0000000000000       ^^^^^^^■^^^^^  ■^■S^^.^^ 


.§.§00000000000 

l.§.§.§ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  00000^ 

0000000000000 

1 

l.§.§ 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  000000 

26 


[Senate 


1 

1,129  55 
1,424  21 
1,031  32 
982  21 
1,473  32 
1,325  99 
1,424  21 
1,031  32 

1 

$589  33 

785  77 
1,129  55 

982  21 
1,129  55 

689  33 
1,473  32 
1,178  66 

7S6  66 

736  66 
1,031  32 
1,031  32 
1,.325  99 
1,325  99 

982  21 

When  term  ex- 
pires. 

f 

Annual  ground  rent. 

For  the  whole  of  Burr  lease  as  above  stated, . . . 
do  do 
do  do 

t         il  ::: 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

■S3SB3I 

3t(1  JO  aiiioadsain 
sSutpimq  Sujionp 
-ap  '5581  ui  aniTjA 

o 

i 

i 

i 

i  iiiiiiiiiifiii 

•sSaipiinq  sq^ 
joj  onjuA  possassE 
JO  aoiiMd  paj'Buii'jsg 

ifiifiir 

1  iiiiiliifliiii 

rn  M  .-  1-  1-1 

^      rHi-l                                               rH  i-H 

•siuBua?  oqi 
JO  ifiaodoad  aqj  Sai 
-aq  jawi  aq^  'gjgf 
ui  sSuipiinq  puTj  }0| 
JO  an[BA  passassD  ssojg 

iiiiiili 

$104,800 

 1 

s  illliiiiiiiili 

Between  what  streets. 

Varick  and  Hudson,  

Hudson  and  Greenwich, 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

do  do 

do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
Varick  and  Hudson, .... 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

■100113  JO  optg 

z 

"JODJIS 

ITjqn    uo  Suijuojj 

Joooooco                     oo o ooe o o o o o oo 

ri      i-i                  IH  ii  ri 

No.  45. 1 


27 


C£        ^  —  O  ?t  t~~       X—  »— '     "  r—  —        »0  3i  «0  r--  -O  O  ^  t—  t— 

• 

$40,592  00 

982  21 
982  21 
1,031  32 
1,031  32 
883  99 
883  99 
883  99 
883  '9 
834  88 
1,080  44 
•1,127  11 

°  0  =  00  =  0  =  o  =§.§.§.§2.200  °°  00  =  00  oo 

00000000000 

°.§.§.g.§.§.§  =  »o.§°oo  0000000000000 

§§.§^  =  000000 

.2  °o  00  00  0.2  0.2^5  00  o»  00  002  00  00  0 

^^^^^.§§.§§^.§ 

iliiililiiiiliillililliiiil 

i 

"1 

liiiiiiliiiiiiiiilililliiii 

s 

|ijj_iiipiil 

4,300 
4,500 
4,000 
3,000 
1,800 
1,700 
1,800 
4,000 
4,200 
4,200 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,501) 
4,500 

5,  500 

6,  500 
4,000 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
5,000' 

B,  500! 

C,  500' 
«,500 
0,500 

$107,8111' 

Ssggigesggg 

^    « .^T  « .iTcT  .0  oTrr 

! 

1 

^.§.§.§.§.§o|oo.§  =  =  =  =  0000000000  00 

1 

§§  0^0  oo|0  0000  0000  0000  00  00^0 

> 

§§§00000000 

§§§000^0000 

§§0000000000000000000000000 

|§§§Ooooooo 

0  =  0^^3  =.§.§.§.§.§000^^^  00  0000000 

|§oooooooo^ 

28 


[Senati 


0}  suoisaoAOj  JO  oni'BjY 

1 

i 

iiisiiiiiiiii 

When  tenn  ex- 
pires. 

1 

1 o = o o o o o , o o o o  oooooooooooo 

< 

i 

1 

s 

i 

1 

^oooooooooooo  oooooooooooo 

1 

q 
3 

^oooooooooooo  oooooooooooo 

1 

•S3S1!0[ 

aqqi  jo  oAnoodsojai 
sSuipiinq  Sui^onp 

^iiiiiliiliii  iiiliiiSiill 

•s3i  ipjinq  oqi 
aoj  8n[HA  passassB 
JO  uojijod  pa^Baipsj 

\ 

I 

1 

« 

\mMMmm  111111111=11 

•sinuuai  oq^ 
JO  iCjJ3do.iJ  oq-)  3ui 
-aq          sqi  'ggsf 
a;  sSuipijnq  puu  }0[ 
JO  oni^A  psesassi!  ssojq 

^illllliiliii  llilliiillii 

Between  what  streets. 

1 

do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
Varick  and  Hudson, . . . 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 
Hudson  and  Greenwicl 

do  do 

do  do 
i      do  do 

do  do 

•133J1SJO  opig 

j 

oooooooooooo  oooooooooooo 

5T!qii     uo  Sniiuojj 

'ooooooooooo£^ooooooooooo^ 

•0^  osnoji 

No.  45.] 


29 


3,928  86 

343  11 
294  66 

$37,223  41 

•§ 

r\      OOOOOOOOO  oooooooooooooooooooo 

o     o°°oooooo     o  =  °  =                         =  ooeo  oooo 

■§■§ 

•§    ^^■§-§-2^^.§.§     o  =  °  °  °o  o  oo  oo  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  oo 

i  11 

_,     oooooo  =  =  o     0=00500000  =  00  =  00  =  000 

CO 

37,000 

11 

$122,100 

1  iMim%n  iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 

II 

i 

2 

1  iiiiiiiii  MmmmmuMii 

s 

•§ 

i  1 

0     °.§o  =  oooo|  ooooooo|oooooooooooo 

>  > 

•§ 

■§•§ 

£^.§.§.§.§.§=.§°£^°°  =  °  =  =  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  00000^ 

§g5 

30 


[Senate 


0}  BU0ISJ0A3J  JO  aniBjY 

$9.33  10 
1,031  32 

o 

$1,080  44 
1,031  32 
736  66 
736  66 
736  66 
736  66 
933  10 

$5,991  50 

§982  21 
933  10 
933  10 
834  88 
834  88 
834  88 
834  88 
785  77 
687  55 
1,129  55 
736  66 
903  55 

When  term  ex- 
pires. 

i 

Annual  ground  rent. 

For  the  whole  of  Burr  lease  as  above  stated, . . . 
do  do 

do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

•S3S"B3[ 

aqi  JO  OAjiDsdsajj; 
-op  'SS8I  °!  sniBA 

11 

i 
1 

iiilSli 

$12,200 

iiiiiiiilili 

^^^^^^^^ 

■sSuipjinq  oqt 

JOJ    OniBA  P3333SSB 

JO  noi^jod  pa^umitsg 

11 

1 

1111111 

C^CS  CS  M  <-i 

1 

liiiiiiiilil 

«<MC^C^C^C4MMeOi-'i-.i-H 

•sjanaa}  oq} 
JO  i}J3doad  aqi  Sai 
-3q  J3HB1  aqi  'S?8i 
ui  sSuipimq  puB  50( 

JO  3n[BA  P3SS3SST!  SSOJQ 

i 

§  1 

i| 

iliiiil 

i 

|llliiiilip„ 

Between  what  streets. 

Varick  and  McDougal, . . 
do            do       . . 

do            do       . . 
do            do       . . 
do            do       . . 
do            do       . . 
do            do       . . 
do  do 
do  do 

do            do      . . 
do            do      . . 
do            do       ■ . 
do            do      . . 
do            do       . . 
do            do       . . 
do            do       . . 
do            do       . . 
do            do       . . 
do            do  .. 
do            do       . . 
Varick  and  Hudson,  . . . . 

•^asjis  JO  epig 

•')33J19 

^uqii    uo  Smjaoij 

SO  o 

3-5 

•0^  aanoH 

g^SSSSSS  §g5^SgSS3SSSSS 

No.  45. J 


31 


$29,368  14 

712  10 

908  55 
319  22 
785  77 
•958  04 

!| 

$834  88 
540  22 
540  22 
785  77 
392  89 
1,375  10 

^  °  =.§  °  °^  o  o        o  o  e  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

^■§-§-§^ 

t 

%%%%%% 

.§.§.1^0000^^^0000000000000 

00000 

T3  13  "TS  t3 

i.l 

piii 

s 

$1,700 
1,  100 
1,100 
1,600 
800 
2,800 

lllliiiiiiililiiiiiiiiii 

i 

$160 
150 
150 

,100 
800 

1 

900 

1,400 
700 
1,200 

i! 

SI 

$126,400 

$1,600 
2,000 
800 
4,700 
2,500 

$11,600 

$3,000 
2,000 
2,000 
3,000 
,  1,500 
4,000 

do  do 
do            do  . 
do            do  . 
do            do  . 

do            do       . . 
do  do 
do            do       . , 
do            do      . . 
do            do       . . 
do            do       . , 
do            do  > 
do            do       . . 
do            do       . . 
Hudson  and  Greenwich; 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

Spring  and  Vandam,  

do         do       . . .  < 
do          do       . . .  1 
do          do    "... . 
do         do  '  .... 

§ 

> 

0000000000000000^0000000 

.§00000000000000000000000 

33 


I  Senate 


•qoinqo  oqi 
0?  saoiBi3A3j  JO  oniuj^ 

When  term  ex- 
pires. 

I 

Soooooo  ooooooooooooooooooo 

5 13 -^3      -a 'T=n3  T3 73               13  T3      -C 73  ^3 -a  TJ 

< 

Annual  ground  rent. 

For  the  whole  of  Burr  lease  as  above  stated, . . . 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

•S0SB3I 

aqi  JO  3Ai}Dods3Jji 
s3uj|)]mq  Sa;)anp 
-ap  '5581  ui  aniTjA 

:i§iiii  liiiiSiiiiiisiiiiii 

•sSaip]inq  aq} 
joj  oniUA  possasST! 
JO  Hoiiaod  pa^Tioiiisa 

iiiipi  liiiiiiiiiiiyiiiii 

COCCC^CS       1-1       i-l            »H                 r-t                      r-i  i-H 

•fflU'Baai  aqi 
JO  jC^Jodoad  aq}  gut 
-aq          aq?  'gggi 
UI  sguipiinq  pun  lot 
JO  anjoA  passassB  ssojf) 

liiiiii  MUMimMimsum 

Between  what  streets. 

Vandam  and  Charlton, . . 
do  do 
do             do       . . 
do             do       . . 
do             do       . . 

:  -| 

do            do       . . 

do            do       . . 

do            do       . . 

do            do       . . 

do            do       . . 

do            do       . . 

do            do      . . 

do            do       . . 

do  do  . . 
Spring  and  Vandam, . . 

do            do       . . 

do            do       . . 

do            do       . . 

do  do  . . 
Vandam  and  Charlton, . 

•^aaj}S  JO  opig 

•}oaj}s 
luqtt     uo  Sui^uojj 

•0^  asnoH 

No.  45  .J 


33 


687  55 
442  00 
491  11 
640  22 
638  44 
638  44 
1,227  77 
1,031  32 
982  21 

i, 

$6,089  73 

687  55 
638  44 
638  44 
1,817  10 
1,227  77 
982  21 
2,357  31 
1,718  87 
1,325  99 
984  21 
1,080  44 
J, 227  77 
1,7I»  87 
1,227  77 

2,062  65 
1,473  32 

oo°         =  o  o  o 

O    W               ^3  T-) 

ooooooooooooo^ 

°.§°.§oeooo 

o  o  o:go  c  =  o  o  o  o  c  o  = 

liiliilii 

iitilllgilii 

2,400 

1,400 
,300 
1 , 300 
i,700 
!,500 
!,000 
t,800 
?,600 
!,700 
!,000 
!,200 
!,500 
1,600 
!,500 

1,200 
1,000 

1,100 
1,000 
900 
900 
1,000 
1,200 

l,fioo 

1,400 
2,000 

$47,000 

$1,400 
1,100 

100 
900 
900 
900 
1,200 

iliililliiiill  ii 

liiiiiili 

$111,000 

$3,000 
2,500 
1,500 
1,600 
1,800 
2,200 
2,000 
1,900 
2,500 

n%mTmum%T% 

Charlton  and  King,  . . . 

do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

King  and  Hamersley, . 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

Spring  and  Vandam,. 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

Vandam  and  Charlton, . 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

Charlton  and  King,., 
do  do 
do  do 
do         do. . 

oo  o  o  o  o  =  oo 

°c  °  »o  o  o  o  oo  o  o 

[Senate  No.  45.] 

3 

34 


I  Senate 


•qajnqo  aqf 
0^  SU0ISJ3A3J  JO  ani^A 


a  O. 


I 


I 

I 

g  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

I 

6 

o 

1^ = ° = o o o o o o o 

I 

iillfiiiiiiilli 
ilfiiiiiiiiirii 

ifii'miiiiiiii^ 

3^ o o| o o o o o o o o o| 

I  ^  I 
§    1  § 


i-t  f-H  ri  »H  »H 


IHIIIIII 

Iliifpp 
||i|f||ii 


•S3SBDI 
JO  8Ap33(IS0J.lI 

sSinpimq  Sai^onp 
-ap'gggi  ni  aniBA  !)3ij 


joj  aniHA  pDssosSB 
JO  noi')jod  pa'CBtnilsg 


JO  jf^jadojd  aqi  Sat 
-DqjsnTJl  oqi  '5581 
at  sSuipimq  pan  }0[ 

JO  OniBA  P3SS3SS1B  SSOJQ 


•laaj^a  jo  apig 


No.  45.] 


35 


s  1 

iisiiii  iiiiii 

li 

m 

r 

o  =  ooo  o  o  o  o  c  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  .§.2  o  » 


.§.§oo°oooooooooooooooo^oooooo  oooo 


.§.§000  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  oooo 


iiiililiiiili 

iiliiii 

iiiiii 

WP. 

C4  CO 

i 

iillSllilllif ; 

mum 

ium 

1 

i,8no, 

1,60(1 
1,800 

i 

liiiiiiliiili 

MUM 
^^^^^^ 

i 

$6,000 
4,500 
7,000 
5,000 

$22,500 

O  oooo  OOj^O  oooo  OOo|  oooo  oooo  CO 

1       1  « 


I 


J, 


.§.§  OOOO  o|  oooo  oooo  «oo  oooo  oooo 


oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo  |ooo 


^.§.§.§.§.§.§.§  o.§oooo^^ooo  ooo  oo  o  oo  o  g  o  o  o 


36 


[Senate 


0^  BuoisaaADj  jo  oniUj^ 

04  ^>  tf)  1^  fTi                               m  J        '                                       M             1^   1^  ts_  f^S   K_   1^   ^-4  \ 

SsigsHsiili^llJBEsJsligl 

1 

ft 

1 

j 

< 

I 

°.§^.§°  o°  °  °  =  °  o  °  °  =  o°oo  ooo  oo 

: 

Annual  ground  rent. 

For  the  whole  of  Burr  lease  as  above  stated, . . . 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 
do  do 

•sasusj 

aq}  JO  9Ai}oadsajai 
sSuipiinq  Suiionp 
-ap'558l  °!  sni^JA  ')a^ 

1 

-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiii 

•sSuipjmq  aqi 
joj  aniTiA  passassTj 
JO  noi^jod  pa^isuiijsj 

lillliiigBiiiiiiiililllii 

r-H  ,-1  i-H  WMC^                r-i       r-i  ,-t  r-i  M    •                           i-l  M 

•siauua}  aqi 
JO  iCjjadoJd  oqi  3ui 
-aqja??^!  aqi  'ySSl 
ui  sSuipiinq  puu  ^0[ 
JO  anjBA  passassB  ssoiQ 

1 

Jjjpjj^ipjjeiililiiiii 

Between  what  streets. 

Spring  and  Vandam,  . . 

do             do       . . 

do             do       . . 

do            do       . . 

do             do       . . 
Vandam  and  Charlton, 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 
Charlton  and  King,  . . 

do             do       . . 

do             do       . . 

do             do       . . 

do             do       . . 

do             do       . . 
King  and  Hamersley,  . . 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 

do            do       . . 

•!)3ajis  JO  apig 

•laajis 
5Bq4i     uo  Sujiuojj 

1                -0^  asnOQ 

No.  45. J 


37 


II 


O  O  I 


<=  o  o 

CQ  O  t- 
•■^t    1  CO 


f 

5 


C-^  to 

o 
w 


■is 


H  H  < 


38 


[Senate 


t-ooooooooooocoooooooo 


ooooooooooooooooooo 

•73  'O  'C      "TD  'w  13  'O  'O  'O  T3 


13      T3      rQ  rc3  13      'S  T3  'O 


•S3SU0[ 

Dq-J    JO  9AT'J03dS3JJt 

S^'uip^inq  Sui^onp 


O  O        O  O  O  O  O  O  »0  O 


Ot-OOOCOOsO»tO 


•s3uip]inq  aq^ 
JO  uoi^aod  ps^TjinT^s^ 

JO  jC^jadoad  oq'^  Sui 
-aq  jo^^m  aq^  ^^cgi 
ui  s3uipixnq  puB  qo[ 
JO  anjUA  passassTJ  ssoio 


OOOOOOOOOiO'O 
OOiOOOOOOOr-iM 


00000000000 
00000000000 

<3>iOO»000'00000 


ifiOOOOOOOO 
C^OOOOOOOO 


000000000 
000000000 

c>aC4ooo>ootQo 


•^oaais  JO  opig 


•^aojis 

uo  Suiinojj 


"^'''^JLl  00C0Q0000S0>0»0s0sOOOOO--f-«^.-' 
I  rHT-ci-lrHi-ii-ti-(i-ii-<WWCSWWC^WNCS 


No.  45.1 


39 


o  o  =  o  c  =  =^  o  o  o  o  o  o         o  o  o  o  =  o  o         =^  c  o  o  c 


iXillllllFiXillfilMlTiiiiilliiiiiililiP  t 


miiiiiisiii 


i  §111  ill  mm%WMAWMA 


mMAm^mmmmmmm^mmi 


'2' 


:nmn|  I 

1  I  f 

 ^  m  ^  _K  ^  


.2  0  0  00  o_o  00  00  00 

■]°°.§.§^.§.§.§.2°«f  o  cooc  =  =  00  o  =  0  oco 


40 


[Senate 


0}  SU0ISJ3A3J  JO  snin^ 


I 


!  0000  =  00000000000000000000 


Q 


sqi  JO  OAipadsajji 
sSaip[inq  Suipnp 


•s3aip];nq  oqj 
joj  aniBA  pasj}se« 
JO  uoi^jod  pa^u.upsj 


»o 000 0000 000 000 00000 000000 


00  =  00000,000000000000000000 


I 

tl£isiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiii§ii 


^  w  cs  cs  cTtJi  MrOCSM  I-.  I—  CS      1—  <N 


.  •sjniiao}  Dq> 
JO  iijadoad  aqj  3ut 
-aq  lanvi  aqi  'gest 
ai  s3uipitnq  puB  to( 
JO  ani'BA  passDSSB  ssojf) 


i  1  ill 

t-^  0^0  00  00  00  o  ^000000^00000, 


•133a?SJ0  Dpig 


I  °  00  00  o|o  00  00  000  00  CO  00  00  00 


I'sqii     uo  Saiiaoa^ 


o o o o 


i  000  00  0000  00  000  00  o^ 


No.  45.] 


41 


?3 

2 

.§.§000  oooo  o        o  o  o  oo  oo  o  oo  o 

00^0000000000000 0=0 000 0 

^  ^  •§■§-§  ^  ■§  ^  ■§•§■§  ^  ■§-§•§  ^  ■§  ^  ■§ -i  •§ 

iUMimuimimuM 

3 

i 

s 

£^ 

iiiiiiiiipiiiisiiiiiii 

I 

ith,  Varick  and  Hudsoi 
lo          do  do 
lo          do  do 
lo          do  do 
lo          do  do 
lo          do  do 
lo          do  do 

=  :::::::::: 

foo  0  00  o|o  0  0  00  00  0  of  000  0  0 

42 


[Senate 


•^uoj  JO  3n\n\  luosojj 

§550  72 
550  72 
10,642  20 
11,174  30 

13,373  SI 
5,015  75 

11,453  27 
8,277  84 

13,302  25 

13,646  75 

422  07 
10,550  10 
1         932  36 
264  61 
793  83 

507  29 
543  53 

817  57 
1      4,514  17 
1         817  57 
1      6,425  86 
15,361  04 

gggo    gogggg   J5gg-S   gg  §§§§§ 

pii  pile  -11--  if.  iiiia 

01  uoisjaApj  JO  anjB^ 

$10,308  20 
10,308  20 
2,782  63 
2,344  70 

3,119  81 
3,575  111 
2,908  291 
3,671  14, 
3,508  .57 
3,119  81 
5,786  00 
8,839  25 
3,528  OOl 
7,834  44 
12,081  56 
13,413  00: 
13,117  12l 
10,764  30i 
11,037  98, 
8,900  OOj 
6,557  091 
2,590  66 
6,131  30 
4,204  75, 
1         4,502  38, 

a 

iiil  lliliiiiligiiisiliril 

m  JO  aAiioacIsDiJ! 
sSaipimq  3m}onp 
-ap  '5581  m  aniBAia^i 

•pSaipimq  aq} 
joj  oniTSA  passassB 
JO  noi(aoa  pa^uaiiisa 

•sjUBua;  ^^% 
jO  ii-iodoad  oqi  Sai 
-aq  aaHB[  aqi  'SS81 
ui  sSuipimq  puB  101 
JO  aniBA  passassB  ssoiQ 

$16,0001 
16,000 
10,000 
5,000 
5,000 
23,000 

13,000 
22,000 
18,000 
15,000 
31,000 
17,000 
23,000i 
12,00o| 
43,000' 
46,000i 
46,000 
23,000 
23,000 
12,000 

9,000 
11,000 

8,000 
17,000 
32,000 

1 
1 

1 

Ciiurch  and  Greenwich, . . . 
1  do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

Broadway  and  Church, . . . 

do 
do 

do                . . . 

do 

Chapel  and  Greenwich,  . . . 
do 

MuiTay  and  AVarren,  

do   

do   

Church  and  Chapel,  

do   

Chapel  and  Greenwich,  . . . 

do 

do 

do 

Broadway  and  Church,... 
do 

•■»a9iis  JO  apig 

1 

 i  do 

 :  do 

  do 

An 

 North, 

  do 

  do 

  do 

  do 

  do 

 1  do 

 jWcst, 

  do  ■ 

  do 

  do 

  do 

  do 

  do 

■            do  i 

Fronting:  on  > 
street. 

Fulton  

do   

do   

do   

1  do   

Vesey,  , 

i  do   

1    do   , 

Barclay,  , 

1  do   

1  do   

Mun-ay,  , 

do   

I  do   

do   

Broadway,  .... 
do 

1  do   

Warren,  

<  do  

do   

do   

do   

do   

do   

do   

•0^  dBpi 

No.  45.] 


43 


■w  cc 


^^^^ 


>  =        O  O  O  Til  -* 


liiiii  s  siiiiiiiili 


liiiesiiiii  iiiiii 

»-i  W -^Cq  ffQ  CO  0^       CQ  C<;  CO  O  1-1  iH* 


iiiiii  5  iiiiilliiliiSliiiiiiiiii  iiiiii 


n     n  If  r^'  ^^^^^ 

__o  _o  I   I  

|o  =  =|°oooooo|oooo|  o|o||oooo  oooooco  oo=|oo 


00  =  0|000000  0  0  0  0  0  0|OOOOOOOOC|  0  0  0  0  =  0  cooooo 


44 


[Senate 


•^U3J  JO  anii!A  ^aosojj 

$225  00 

130  00 
120  00 
100  00 
120  00 
150  00 
135  00 
150  OO 

^     400  00 

75  00 
150  00 
150  00 
150  00 
150  00 
150  06 

240  00 

100  00 
130  00 
140  00 
140  00 
130  00 
140  00 

•qDjnqo  aqt 

$2,111  77 
2, 135  62 
10,000  00 
1,731  S)0 
1,385  52 
1,316  23 

865  21 
1,388  51 

711  76j 

906  47' 
1,016  60 
2,998  97 

845  35 
1,316  24 
1,026  29 

894  35 
1,3R7  83 
1,315  22 

3,362  79 

1,228  71 
1,261  59 
1,915  68 

409  59 
1,192  20 

617  52 

When  term 
expires. 

y'rs.  m's.  d"s. 

■S3SB31 

aqi  JO  OAiiDsdsaaji 
sSuipimq  Suiianp 
-ap'SSSinjaniB'^^^N 

ililiiiiSsiiliililiililiili 

•sSuipiinq  aq; 
joj  an\xs\  psssasaB 
JO  uojiaod  p3}i)uiiisa 

iiiilllii 

3,100 
3,300 
3,300 
1,90(1 
1,70(1 
3,500 
3,800 
3,500 

200 
2,300 

900 
1,150 
1,100 
2,600 

•sjanua}  aqi 
JO  Xyadcid  aq?  Sui 
-aq  i3}}«i  aq?  'gggl 
ui  sSuipiinq  puu  ?0[ 
JO  aniBA  passassB  ssoiQ 

1,000 
,  000 
,000 
,500 
,2110 
,10(1 
,1110 
,500 
,0110 
,500 
,200 
,500 

iiiiiiilliiiii 

•}a3j}S  JO  ap!S 


0  ^ 
o  « 


 Om  o 


•0^  duw 


•o^  asnoji 


No.  45. J 


45 


WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWeWWWWWWWMWM  f¥¥¥I§l 


liilliliiiBliillliiSiliiiiii :i ; = : 

2,800 

2,400 
2,200 
2,800 
3,000 

3,  000 
3,800 
3,800 
3,500 
3,500 
5,000 
5,000 
6,000 
3,200 
2,200 
2,600 
3,200 
3,000 
3,000 
4,00(1 
5,000 
3,20(1 
4,500 
4,000 

4,  (iO0 
5,500 
5,000 

19,000 
28,000 

ilMIIII 

B  9  «  4  %  ;^  A  ^  2  


 <^ 


I 


46 


[Senate 


•^a3j  JO  oniBA  lassajj 


0}  saoiai3A3i  JO  3niT!j\^ 


rHi-l        iH        rH  M        r-t        r-T  cT  r-f^i-? 


pass  aiisssiai  s  3  i  sai 


l|  5 


iiiififfirfipf 

N       (m"      (m"      C?  (^^  r:  r^' rn" 


im 


Dqi  JO  OATjoadsajJi 
sgaipimq  Sajionp 
-ap  '5581  °T  ant-BA  ^a^j 


^iiii  liliililiiigsii 


mi 


•sSntpiinq  aq} 
"joj  oniUA  pa3593SB 
JO  noi'^jod  pa}T!nii^S3 


P 


fill  pjjjiiipiiiii 


mi 


•siauaaj  aq^ 
JO  Xjiadcid  oq)  Sal 
-aq  '598 i 

ni  sSajpimq  pun  }0( 
JO  aniBA  passossB  ssojig 


I 

111 
Ui 


1  : 


•^aaijs  JO  apig 


Ifll 


•0^  osnoH 


No.  45.J 


47 


i  p    i  1 1  ills  B  I  1  mmm^  ies 

— gi  i — i-^-g§g§"^^^~il¥i¥iT¥n§"§ 

1  as    ill  lisi  III  issaaaiss  laa 


1--  O  O  O  O  O       ci  c>  OC 


iio:ri:o"irofiiTTW 

fiifromiwmim 


(.rove  ana  rsarrow,  

Banow  and   Morton,  .... 

do             do         . .  •  ■ 

do             do  .... 

do            do  .... 

do             do  .... 

do             do  .... 

do             do  .... 

do             do  .... 

do             do  .... 

do             do  .... 

do  do  .... 
(irovo  and  Barrow,   

4 

4 
4 

§^ 
%4 

I 

1 

i 

§■% 

%4 
%4 

: 

!  : 

Clarkson  and  Lo  Hoy, .... 
do            do  .... 
do            do  .... 

e  . 


48 


[Senate 


•}aoi  JO  aniTJA  ^aasajj 

$2,746  40 

1,368  70 
1,373  20 
1,961  72 

2,661  36 

1,330  68 

1.254  65 
1,900  97 
1  ,765  55 
1,373  20 
1,373  20 
1,373  20 

1,414  19 
1,1:  1  35 
1,131  35 
3.011  02 
8S8  92 
851  13 
7S0  20 
1,010  14 
808  U 

1.255  51 

$350  00 

180  on 

175  00 
250  00 

350  Ool 

175  no 

165  00 
250  00 
225  00 
175  00 
175  00 
175  00 

175  00 
140  00 
140  on 
372  611 

110  on 

120  00 

no  00 

125  00 
100  00 
160  00 

•qojnqo  oqi 
0)  suoisJOASJ  JO  anicjv 

$2,087  84 

1,>t'8  66 
664  31 
1,091  37 

2,799  32 

515  6fi 
515  6H 
1,178  66 
1,091  37 
854  n 
^96  47 
2,277  65 

1,535  80 
871  06 
779  36 

1,902  56 
939  82 
920  65 
920  65 
779  36 
641  83 

1,043  92 

When  terra 
expires. 

y"rs  m's.  d's- 

oqt  JO  ♦Ajiosdsaji; 
sSuipiinq  Sujionp 
-op  'c'SHi  ni  aniUA 

mil  iiiiiiiii  iiiiip.iii 

•sSuipiinq  aq") 
joj  aniTjA  pas^asSB 
JO  aoijjod  pajBoijisa 

lllll      liliiiiii  liliiiiili 

•s-)ui!uo}  aq} 
JO  X^jadoad  aqj  3ui 
-aq  aoiiui  aqi  'gcg[ 
ni  sSuipimq  puu  50( 
JO  aniUA  passassu  ssojg 

liiiiliiiiiilililililllliii 

Between  what  streets. 

Clarkson  and  Le  Roy, .... 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 

Le  Roy  and  Morton,  

do   

do 
do 
do 

Morton  and  Barrow,  . . . . 
do 
do 
do 
do 

Barrow    and  Christophi 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 

Barrow  and  Morton,  

do 

•laajis  JO  apig 

1 

'i 

|.§.§.§oooo  =  ooooo»oeooooooeeoo 

•ON  <I«W 

No.  45.j 


49 


rc  CO  W  i-H  F-l  CC  M  r-i       i-l  r-t  M       i-i  ^  M 


©       C<  O  1^  It- M  W  iH  pH       es  O  M       M  «  M  M  M  M  05  Oi  0>       ^  ^  S 

i  iiiii  iiiiiiiiii  ijjjj„iip.riil  i  Em 

^^tr^^CO       C^M  M ro  «  cTeC       Co'      W  Cc'm       M  eo  lO  •o'to'i-l       i-l  M  rl       M       rH  I-l  f-1  I-* 


1  liiii  piiiipii  peipiii  ip  i  pj 

If 

i  piii  ipjpjpjpjipj_pp„pp  i  PI 

II 

do   

Franklin  and  N.  Moore,  .. 
do 
do 
do 

do   

do   

Hubert  and  Laight,  

do   

do   

do   

Hamersly  and  Clarkson,., 

o  o  g  o  e  o  e     ^  =  »  =  »  «  «  »  o  °  »  »  »  =  o  o  o  o  o         o  o^^^^^^  =  = 

 ??  -  

-V+[Seiiate,  No.  45.]  4  "^"^ 


50 


[Senate 


aocoooo>oocoaooooococooooococ4 


00  CO  Jt-  o 
CO  M 
t—  o 


»C  ift  o  o 


saoisj3A8J  JO  oniu^/V 


^  O  M 

CQ  (O 
Oi  CO 


O  O  S 


3q>  JO  oAT?oads3JJt 


o  o  o  o  o  o  <=.  : 


>cioooooooooo 


1  o  o  o 
>  O  o 
S      CO  efi 


■i       'tj^  ^ 


•sSaipiinq  oq:) 

JOJ    WIT!A  pOS93SSB 

JO  uoi^od  pa'^'Biupsg 


CiOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 


CO       rH  r-« 


<=s  O  < 

O  O  5 

C5  lO  ; 


•B^u'Baaj  aq^ 
JO  ^^ladojd  oq';  Sai 
-3q  JO^^'Bi  oq^  'qgsi 
m  sSuipjinq  pn^B  "joi 
JO  oniuA  passass^  ssoj£) 


ooooooooooooooooooo 


o  o  o  o  o 

O  O  O  O  i3 

O  O  CO  t*x^- 


•^03j:js  JO  opig 


'o  o  oo  oooo  o  oooo  o  o  mOOOo  ooo-goo 


t-t-t^**-  CC  00 


«OCOcO^OcOc0^cOcccOc050cOcoeOOCOcOCOC«3CC?OCOCOcOcDcO 


No.  45.1 


51 


gl  §§§§§§§     S§5i§§§§§§5§§§i§§  §§§§ 

2S    §§§§§§§§  §§2lsSl^illlis2i2  sill 


iiiiiiii  i  i  ii  i  iiiiiiiiiiiiffiiiiiiii 


i 


I  i 


o  o  o  c  =1  o         o  o  o| 


111: 


ooooococ     o     o     oo     o    .g.§|°ocoooooo|oooooc  =  oo 

iliisiiii  i  I  ii  I  gsssiisiiii-ssgs-g^ 


[Senate 


"§¥§§¥§  fill  §§§§£§§§ 


3<H 

<n  saoisj3A8j  JO  jniHA 


.2 


am  JO  3A1130dS3IJt 


Mill  iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 


—       rH  r-i  i-(  r-T      tA  )M  i-l  i-*       CSrHMMfMrH  i-^* 


•sSaipimq  ^^'\ 
joj  sni'BA  possassB 
JO  aoi^jjod  p9}^Hi!}sa 


IIIIF 


liliilllfllfflllfl 


JO  Sixadoli  8qi  2ui 
-aq  januioq^  'gcgt 
m  sSuipimq  puB  loi 
JO  oniTjA  passassB  ssojf) 


•g^^o^^oo|ooooo^ooo 

i  i 


•^93J19  JO  3p;g 


f 


;  00000000000000^1 


•Oil  asnoji 


No.  45. 1 


53 


Siggsgiggss  §§§§!    §g§§§  g  g  gggg  g- 


iiiil  i  i  iiSi 

i 

M        ,-1  ^  n 

2,160 
1 , 600 
760 
760 
860 
1,700 
1 , 360 
2, 100 
1,700 
1,260 
2,400 
2,400 
2,760 
2,200 
1,760 
1,2611 
1,260 

1,800 
1 , 500 
1,300 
2,600 
2,301) 

l  6,000 

1  3,200 

1,750 
1,100, 
650 
1,300 

1 

iipJJJJiipiilii 

iiiliiiliilili 

Hudson  and  QreenTrlob,.^! 
do 
do 
do 

Hudson  and  Bedford, .... 

do  ... 
Hudson  and  Grcenwioh, . . 

do 
do 

Hudson  and  Variok, 

do   

do            . . . . , 

do   

do 

do   

do   

do 

Hudson  and  Oroonwioh,  • . 
do 
do 
do 
do 

Hudson  and  Greenwich,. . , 

do 
do 
do 

do 

S^^SS  :  :  : 

North, 
do 
do 
do 

South, 

j 


~t-  ■+ 


54 


[Senate 


ggggogg  §§§g¥ir 


•qDJtiqo  aqj 
0%  Baoisj3Aaj  JO  am^jV 


SKSSSS^    SSS^S^g  §§§§§§§ 

s|iH|i|  iiiiiii 


oqi  JO 
-ap  'SS81  ui  aniBA  la^j 


iroTiTririiiiiii 


•eSuipiraq  aqi 
joj  oniBA  paesassu 
JO  uoi^ao" 


firffirrrifsir 

u  ---- 


JO  i»J!Xload  oq?  3ai 
-aq  aa«T!i  aqi  'qqsi 
m  sguipttnq  pUT!  ?o[ 
JO  anii3A  passassB  ssojq 


niiiii  iimii"  UMMM 

^"«c^cJc.-«cr  c^c^cieici^-^-  cr^-^'cT^'.-rcT 


r1  I 


iiJ 


•^eaj'ts  JO  apig 


f 


No.  45. 1 


55 


gggg 
ilii 


ill 


f 


m 


I 


iiii 


IIII 


Sis 


III 
Sis 


i 


■is 


56 


[Senatk 


Besides  the  above  mentioned  real  estate,  the  following  parcels 
of  land,  not  under  lease,  are  owned  by  this  corporation,  to  wit : 

First.  The  piece  of  land  in  the  first  ward  of  the  city  of  New- 
York,  whereon  is  erected  the  parish  church,  called  Trinity 
Church,  bounded  east  and  south  and  west  by  the  Broadway, 
Rector  street,  and  Trinity  Place,  (formerly  Lumber  street,)  re- 
spectively, and  north  by  the  land  next  mentioned,  such  piece  of 
land  comprising  a  lot  of  land  supi^osed  to  have  been  purchased 
for  the  church  site  by  Governor  Fletcher  and  others,  in  or  about 
the  year  1696,  and  part  of  which  was  formerly  called  the 
Queen's  Garden,  and  contains  in  breadth,  on  Broadway  aijd 
Trinity  Place,  about  314  feet,  and  in  length,  on  the  easterly  and 
westerly  sides,  about  230  feet.  This  church  and  land  is  solely 
used  as  a  place  of  worship  and  cemetery.  The  value  of  this 
property  is  unknown. 

Second.  The  piece  of  land  next  north  of  the  last  mentioned 
piece  of  land,  and  bounded  by  it  on  the  south  by  the  Broadway, 
on  the  east  by  the  said  Trinity  Place,  on  the  west  and  on  the 
north  by  land  formerly  of  Mr.  Roosevelt,  now  of  Bulkley  and 
Chaplin  and  others.  This  land  was  given  to  Trinity  Church  by 
the  corporation  of  the  city  of  New  York,  in  the  year  1703,  to  be 
appropriated  forever  thereafter  for  part  of  the  public  church 
yard  of  Trinity  Church,  and  for  a  burying  ground,  to  which  uses 
only  it  has  been  applied.    Its  value  is  unknown. 

Third.  The  piece  of  land  situate  in  the  Third  ward  of  the  city 
of  New  York,  bounded  north,  east,  south  and  west  by  Vesey 
street,  the  Broadway,  Fulton  street  and  Church  street,  respect- 
ively, on  which  St.  Paul's  Chapel  stands.  It  is  150  feet  wide 
in  front,  on  Broadway  and  in  the  rear,  and  400  feet  in  length  on 
each  side.  It  is  solely  used  for  a  place  of  public  worship, 
church  yard  and  burying  ground,  except  a  small  lot  on  the 
northwest  corner  occupied  by  the  city  corporation  for  the  accom- 
modation of  the  fire  department  free  of  rent,  and  for  a  Sunday 
and  parish  school  room  and  ofTice,  and  that  on  the  southwest 
corner  is  the  vestry  office  of  the  corporation.  The  value  of  this 
property  is  unknown. 


Kc.45]  57 

Fourth.  The  piece  of  land  situate  in  the  Fifth  ward  of  said 
city,  on  the  east  side  of  Varick  street,  and  extending  through  to 
St.  John's  lane,  between  Beach  aud  Laight  streets,  whereon  St. 
John's  chapel  stands,  being  17n  feet  in  width  by  175  feet  in  depth. 
On  the  southeast  corner  of  this  lot  is  a  brick  stable,  erected  for 
and  used  by  the  rector  free  of  charge.  The  value  of  this  pro- 
perty is  unknown. 

Fifth.  The  burying  ground,  or  cemetery,  in  the  Ninth  ward  of 
the  city  of  New- York,  commonly  called  the  Episcopal  cemetery, 
bounded  west  by  Hudson  street,  north  by  Le  Roy  street,  east  by 
the  burying  ground  of  the  German  Lutheran  congregation,  and 
south  by  Clurkson  street,  being  208  feCt  in  width,  by  341  feet  in 
length.  The  westerly  part  of  this  ground  is  reserved  for  the  site 
of  a  church  edifice,  and  no  burials  have  yet  been  made  in  it. 
Nine  lots  in  that  part  fronting  on  Hudson  street,  and  two  lots  or 
parcels  adjoining,  fronting  on  Clarkson  and  Le  Roy  streets,  on 
which  stands  a  small  house,  in  which  the  keeper  lives,  and  a 
chapel  for  the  performance  of  the  burial  service,  are  assessed  as 
specified  in  the  foregoing  schedule,  and  the  residue  is  the  bury- 
ing ground,  the  value  of  which  is  unknown. 

Sixth.  The  Trinity  Church  cemetery,  situated  in  the  Twelfth 
ward  of  said  city,  bounded  by  the  Tenth  avenue  and  Hudson 
river  on  the  east  and  west,  and  by  153d  and  155th  streets  on  the 
south  and  north,  containing,  streets  and  avenues  included,  twenty- 
three  and  ninety-four  hundredths  acres  of  land.  This  property 
was  purchased  by  Trinity  Church  in  the  fall  of  1842,  subse- 
quently and  pursuant  to  the  act  concerning  "  the  acquisition  of 
burial  places  by  religious  corporations  in  the  city  of  New  York," 
passed  April  11th,  1842.  The  value  of  this  property  is  un- 
known. 

Seventh.  The  piece  of  land  in  the  Eighteenth  ward  of  the  city 
of  Ne.w  York,  whereon  Trinity  chapel  stands,  bounded  on  the 
north  by  26th  street,  on  the  south  by  25th  street,  aud  situated 
between  Broadway  and  the  Sixth  avenue,  and  commencing  about 
450  feeteastwardly  from  said  avenue,  and  containing  in  breadth  on 
25th  and  26th  street,  each  125  feet,  and  in  length  on  the  east 


58 


[Senate 


aad  west  sides  each  197  feet  6  inches.  The  cost  of  this  property 
is  stated  in  tliis  report.  It  is  solely  used  as  a  place  of  worship. 
The  value  of  this  property  is  unknown. 


We,  the  corporation  called  "  The  rector,  church  wardens  and 
vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of  New  York,"  do 
hereby  certify  and  declare  the  preceding  to  be  the  return  of  said 
corporation,  adopted  at  a  meeting  thereof  held  on  the  13th  day 
of  February  instant,  and  that  William  E.  Dunscomb,  Esquire, 
by  whom  the  said  return  is  signed,  and  which  was  made  out  by 
him,  or  under  his  direction,  is  the  comptroller  of  the  said  corpo- 
ration, and  Richard  H,  Ogden,  Esquh-e,  the  clerk  thereof.  In 
witness  whereof,  we  have  caused  oiu-  seal  to  bq.  hereunto  affixed 
this  fifteenth  day  of  February,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  fifty-six. 

By  order  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  church,  in  the  city  of 
New-York. 

WILLIAM  BERRIAN,  Recicr. 

[L.  S.]  RiCHD.  H.  OGUtN, 

Clerk  of  the  Vestry, 
Wm.  E.  Dunscomb, 

Senior  Warden  and  Comptroller. 


WM.  E.  DUNSCOMB, 
Smior  Ward€n  and  Comptroller. 


FACTS  AGAINST  FANCY; 


OB, 


A  TRUE  AND  JUST  YIE^ 


OF 


TRINITY  CHURCH 


BY  THE 


REV.  WILLIAM  BERRIAI^,  D.  D., 


THE  BECTOK   OF   THE  SAME. 


NEW  TOEK: 
PUDNEY  &  RUSSELL,  PRINTERS, 

No.  T9  .JOHN-STEEET. 
1856. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1355,  by 

The  Kev.  Wm.  Berkian,  D.  T>., 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern 
District  of  New  York. 


R.  C.  VALENTINE, 

StERROTTPBH  and  Et.KaTROTTPtBT. 

17  Dutch-at.,  cor.  Pulton 
N«w  TORK. 


FACTS  AGAINST  FANCY. 


There  are  occasions  when,  in  the  proud  conscious- 
ness of  having"  acted  rightly,  we  are,  nevertheless, 
accused  unjustly,  that-  we  are  restrained  by  a  sense 
of  self-respect  from  answering  the  charges,  and  would 
rather  suffer  in  silence  than  subject  ourselves  to  fresh 
humiliation.  This  is  especially  so  in  the  case  of 
individuals  with  noble  minds.  It  is  so,  in  a  degree, 
likewise,  with  public  men,  who  have  no  private 
aims,  and  are  labouring  solely  for  the  good  of  others. 
Such  is,  precisely,  the  situation  of  Trinity  Church. 
She  has  gone  on  from  generation  to  generation  with 
the  steady  aim  and  constant  desire  of  doing  all 
the  good  in  her  power,  without  regard  to  the  in- 
gratitude for  her  favors,  or  the  injustice  and  violence 
of  popular  clamour,  and  so,  I  think,  she  would  pro- 
ceed for  the  time  to  come,  were  it  not  abundantly 
manifest  that  there  is  a  concert  of  action  and  a  com- 
bination of  all  elements  against  her,  which,  by  means 


4 


of  gross  misrepresentation  and  unu'ortliy  disparage- 
ment, are  intended  to  cripple  and  destroy  lier,  and 
whicli,  I  trust  in  Grod,  may  be  signally  defeated. 

It  woidd  be  a  curious  thing  if  all  the  secret  motives 
could  be  analyzed  and  detected,  wliich  unite  men  of 
such  different  minds  so  heterogeneously,  in  this 
strange  combination  against  Trinity  Church.  Polit- 
ical and  religious  prejudice,  restless  agitation,  un- 
bridled cupidity,  the  jealousy  of  wealth  and  influence 
in  all  their  forms,  however  beneficently  and  usefully 
emj)loyed,  are  enough  to  account  for  the  eager 
activity  of  worldly  men  in  this  unworthy  pursuit. 
But,  disappointment,  with  others,  in  the  unreasonable 
expectations  of  the  bounty  of  Trinity  Church,  which, 
in  many  cases,  it  was  out  of  her  power  to  gratity ; 
the  neglect  of  visionary  schemes  for  enlarging  her 
usefulness,  which,  practical  men,  on  the  bare  sugges- 
tion of  them,  could  not  always  see  fit  to  carry  out ; 
and,  above  all,  the  root  of  bitterness  in  the  entertain- 
ment of  sound  Church  principles,  and  the  manful 
maintenance  of  them  at  all  times,  through  good  and 
evil  report ;  these  are  the  faults  which,  on  the  part 
of  some,  can  never  be  forgotten,  and  of  others,  never 
forgiven.  Down  with  her,  down  with  her,  even  to 
the  ground,  "  by  law"  if  they  can,  "  without  law" 
if  they  "cannot." 

It  is  not  my  design,  in  the  statement  which  I  am 
about  to  make,  to  notice  the  legal  or  political  ques- 
tions in  relation  to  the  title  of  Trinity  Church.  These 
have  been  so  often  determined  and  settled  in  all 


6 


their  aspects,  by  the  opinions  of  the  Chancellor,  the 
conclusions  of  the  Land  Commissioners,  the  decisions 
of  the  inferior  courts,  the  higher  courts,  and  the 
court  of  final  appeal,  as  to  make  it  a  matter  of  wonder 
that  credulity  should  still  be  as  blindfold,  and  agita- 
tion as  restless,  as  if  no  decisions  in  the  case  had  ever 
been  made. 

I  intend  merely  to  meet  the  more  common  objec- 
tions and  popular  errors  Avhich  so  generally  prevail 
in  regard  to  the  wealth,  the  duties,  and  failings  of 
Trinity  Church,  and  to  discuss  them  with  temper, 
candour,  and  truth.  Among  the  most  conspicuous 
of  these  errors,  is  the  exao^oferated  notion,  which  is 
almost  universally  entertained,  of  the  enormous  and 
unbounded  wealth  of  this  great  Corporation.  It  is 
the  theme  of  the  press,  the  subject  of  legislative 
enquiry,  the  longing  of  avarice,  the  temptation  to 
rapacity,  the  excuse  for  sacrilege.  It  is  a  fruitful 
topic,  which  may  be  treated  in  a  variety  of  ways, 
but,  in  almost  all  cases,  however,  to  answer  one 
common  end.  In  some  it  is  done  thoughtlessly,  in 
ignorance  and  delusion ;  in  others,  with  wilfulness 
and  malice,  and  the  most  pernicious  intent.  It  is 
surprising,  nevertheless,  to  behold  occasionally,  intel- 
ligent, conscientious,  and  devout  men,  adopting  this 
popular  error  without  examination,  and  giving  cur- 
rency to  it  with  all  the  extravagance  and  absurdity 
of  popular  belief  This  was  painfully  illustrated  at 
the  late  Convention  of  the  Diocese,  in  the  case  of  an 
honorable  man,  distinguished  for  the  warmth  of  his 


6 

feelings  and  tlie  strength  of  his  prejudices,  but,  never- 
theless, very  generally  respected  for  the  honesty  of  his 
purposes  and  his  great  moral  worth.  After  indulging 
in  a  course  of  remark  against  Trinity  Church,  from 
which  he  should  have  been  restrained  by  filial  rever- 
ence to  the  memory  of  his  venerated  father,  who, 
for  several  years,  was  a  "Warden  of  that  Church,  and 
who  adorned  the  station  as  he  did  every  other  which, 
in  the  fullness  of  his  honours,  he  was  selected  to  fill ; 
and  after  having  had  abundant  opportunities  of 
learning  the  actual  condition  of  the  parish  from  his 
pure  and  honored  brother,  who,  for  seventeen  years, 
was  a  Vestryman  of  the  same,  and  who  died  in  its 
bosom  ;  he,  nevertheless,  united  in  the  general  cry 
against  its  enormous  wealth  for  the  accomplishment 
of  a  particular  purpose,  and  gave  a  touch  of  exaggera- 
tion to  his  picture  unequalled  by  all  who  have  gone 
before  him.  "The  dreams  of  avarice  have  never 
conceived  it." 

Now  what  is  it  1  This  wealth  is  not  to  be  deter- 
mined by  fanciful  conjecture,  but  by  sober  calculation 
and  absolute  fact.  It  is  to  be  determined,  so  far 
as  the  measure  of  its  bounties  is  concerned  in  the  relief 
of  others,  beyond  the  immediate  wants  of  the  parish 
itself,  l)y  its  present  and  available  means,  and  not  by 
its  remote  and  contingent  results.  What,  then,  are 
these  available  means  1  According  to  the  statement  in 
the  History  of  Trinity  Church,  prepared  by  the  Rector 
with  the  fullest  opportunities  of  information  and 
with  great  accuracy  and  care,  the  gross  revenue  of 


1 


the  Corporation  from  ground  rents,  pew  rents,  and 
every  other  source,  had  never  in  any  one  year 
reached  a  higher  point  than  $57,932  37.  After  de- 
ducting the  interest  on  the  debt  of  about  $440,000, 
amounting  to  $24,802  31,  the  net  income  thereof  was, 
in  1847,  only  $33,130  06.  This  was  the  sum  total,  as 
declared  in  all  the  gravity  of  history  by  a  minister  of 
truth.  This  was  the  sum  total  as  declared  by  the  solemn 
testimony  of  the  Comptroller,  before  a  Committee  of 
the  Legislature.  And  if  the  one  is  not  to  be  credited 
on  his  responsibility  as  a  conscientious  historian,  nor 
the  other  on  the  sacredness  of  an  oath  as  a  christian, 
there  is  an  end  of  faith  among  men,  and  no  higher 
sanction  can  be  given. 

But  in  order  to  present  the  whole  subject  with 
frankness  and  candour,  and  to  leave  no  room  for  sus- 
picion in  honourable  minds  of  evasion  or  doubt,  it  is 
proper  to  state,  that,  from  great  changes  in  the  general 
Talue  of  property  in  this  city  within  the  last  few  years, 
the  income  of  Trinity  Church  has  been  materially  in- 
creased. But  what  is  it,  with  this  somewhat  sudden 
and  unexpected  advantage,  at  the  present  time  1  The 
gross  amount  of  it  from  ground  rents,  pew  rents, 
and  every  other  source,  was,  on  the  first  of  May 
last,  $89,486  54.  After  deducting,  then,  the  inter- 
est on  its  present  debt  of  $648,913,  (which  was 
mainly  incurred  by  her  benefactions  to  others,) 
amounting  to  $34,781  28,  the  net  income  of  Trinity 
Church  is  precisely,  neither  more  nor  less  than 
$54,705  26.    And  is  this  amount  for  an  ancient  Cor- 


8 


poration  witli  a  large  landed  property  ia  a  great  and 
flourisMng  city,  "  beyond  the  dreams  of  avarice  V  The 
wonder  is,  that  it  should  be  so  small.  This  is  only  to  be 
accounted  for  from  the  fact,  that  the  greater  part  of 
the  Church  Estate  is  out  on  lease  at  a  mere  nominal 
rent,  and  which  is  not  to  expire  for  several  years. 
Now  this  income  of  Trinity  Church,  when  reduced  by 
arithmetical  calculation  to  its  actual  amount,  and  com- 
pared with  the  general  notions  of  its  unlimited,  extent, 
is  an  instance  of  the  fallacy  of  popular  delusion  with- 
out a  parallel  in  the  annals  of  mankind. 

It  is  equalled,  as  there  is  good  reason  to  believe,  by 
tbe  income  of  tbe  Associate  Reformed  Dutch  Churcli  of 
this  city,  against  which  there  is  no  clamour,  as  I  am 
very  sure  there  is  no  ground.  It  is  exceeded  by  the 
income  of  the  Sailor's  Snug  Harbour,  in  the  further 
increase  of  which  all  benevolent  minds  would  rejoice. 
It  is  both  equalled  and  surpassed  by  the  incomes  of 
many  individuals  in  this  great  commercial  metropolis, 
which  are  viewed  without  jealousy,  and  enjoyed  in 
quietness  and  ease. 

Tlie  general  ground  of  complaint,  then,  against 
Trinity  Church,  is  based  on  the  fallacious  assumption 
of  her  having  the  power  to  do  what  each  one  desires, 
and  what  she,  in  the  plenitude  of  her  power,  sees  fit 
to  will.  The  wealth  of  Croesus  would  not  be  suffi- 
cient for  the  purpose.  But,  nevertheless,  all  appli- 
cants for  her  favour  hold  on  to  this  opinion  with  un- 
flinching tenacity,  in  spite  of  the  most  sober  represen- 
tations and  all  rational  belief.    The  perplexity  and 


9 


embarrassment,  therefore,  of  this  Corporatiofn,  from 
such  an  incorrigible  6rror,  can  only  be  conceived  and 
appreciated  by  men  of  sound  wisdom  and  calm  judg- 
ment, who  are  accustomed  to  look  at  things  as  they 
actually  are,  and  not,  as  to  superficial  minds,  they 
falsely  appear. 

Now,  how,  then,  is  the  charge  of  the  sordid  avarice 
of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  view  of  her  real,  but  not 
fancied  means,  to  be  met  ?  I  answer,  emphatically  by 
her  deeds.  There  is  nothing  in  this  country  nor  any 
other,  so  far  as  I  know,  that  can  be  compared  with 
them.  From  the  time  that  she  reached  the  point 
when  her  income  exceeded  her  reasonable  wants,  to 
the  time  that  it  had  gone  far  beyond  them,  she  has, 
in  due  proportion,  dispensed  them  with  a  freedom  and 
liberality  which  have  made  her  wealth  ,a  general  bless- 
ing. But  as  assertion  is  one  thing,  and  proof  is  an- 
other, I  will  proceed  at  once  to  establish  the  truth  of 
the  declaration.  And  I  beg  the  patience  of  the  reader 
for  the  dryness  of  the  facts,  on  account  of  their  im- 
portance and  pertinency  to  the  matter  in  hand. 

In  the  statement  of  these  facts  I  must  have  recouree 
to  the  most  reliable  means  of  verifying  them,  and  I 
am  not  aware  of  any  better  than  those  which  are  fur^ 
nished  so  minutely  and  fully  in  the  History  of  Trinity 
Church. 


10 


"  GRANTS,   GIFTS   AND  LOANS  OF   TRINITY  CHURCH. 

"  In  the  early  part  of  the  history  of  this  parish,  it  stood  in 
need  of  assistance  itself,  and  was,  therefore,  altogether  unable 
to  attend  to  the  wants  of  others.  The  first  instance  of  its 
bounty  towards  a  neighbouring  church,  recorded  in  the  min- 
utes, was  in  the  gift  of  the  communion  cloth,  pulpit  cloth,  and 
cloth  for  the  desk,  to  Mr.  Peter  Jay,  for  the  church  at  Rye,  in 
the  year  1745.  Since  that  time,  in  every  alteration  and  im- 
provement of  Trinity  Church  and  its  Chapels,  its  gifts  to 
needy  congregations  of  articles  of  all  kinds  have  been  innu- 
merable ;  baptismal  fonts,  communion  plate,  chandeliers,  lus- 
tres, pulpits,  desks,  stoves,  bells,  iron  gates,  iron  railing  and 
other  fences,  flagging  stones,  carpets  for  chancel  and  aisles, 
and  almost  every  thing  which  can  enter  into  the  construction 
and  serve  for  the  decoration  of  the  Sanctuary.  These,  how- 
ever, though  a  seasonable  relief  to  pari.shes  which  were  limited 
in  their  resources,  are  scarcely  worthy  of  being  noticed  in 
connection  with  its  lavish  bounties  and  munificent  grants  to 
most  of  the  churches  throughout  the  State.  There  is  hardly 
a  form  in  which  tlieir  liberality  could  promote  the  interests 
of  religion,  that  it  has  not  assumed.  When  unable  to  con- 
tribute largely,  they  did  it  judiciously,  and  according  to  their 
ability. 

Thus  we  find  at  a  time*  when  infidelity  was  very  prevalent 
here,  that  200  copies  of  a  work  entitled  the  Antidote  to  Deism 
were  purchased  by  the  Vestry,  and  committed  to  the  Rector 
and  Assistant  Ministers  for  distribution,  and  shortly  after  500 
copies  of  Watson's  Apology. 

As  there  was  no  Bible  and  Common  Prayer  Book  Society 
in  that  day,  the  Vestry,  in  consideration  of  the  great  feeble- 


*  1797. 


11 


ness  and  urgent  wants  of  the  Church,  in  some  slight  degree 
anticipated  the  establishment  of  such  an  institution. 

In  1797,  they  gave  to  the  committee  of  the  Convention  for 
Propagating  the  G-ospel  150  copies  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  and  100  copies  to  Christ  Church,  Duanesburg.  In 
the  following  year  50  copies  to  Christ  Church,  Ballston.  500 
copies  were  afterwards  given  to  the  Rector  for  distribution, 
together  with  200  copies  of  Hobart's  Companion  for  the  Altar. 
And  in  1807,  200  copies  of  Fowler's  Exposition  of  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer.  On  another  occasion  an  appropriation 
was  made  of  ^  100,  which  the  Rector  was  to  expend  in  Prayer 
Books. 

The  Vestry  also  committed  to  the  Rector,  for  the  pro- 
motion of  religion  upon  the  frontiers  of  this  State, 

£150,  $375 

In  1799,  They  gave  to  the  Committee  for  the  Propaga- 
tion of  the  Gospel  $412 

1805,                    do             do                   do  250 
1807,                    do             do                   do  250 
At  one  time  they  appropriated  £200  towards  fur- 
nishing land  for  a  Negro  Burial-Ground,   .       .  $500 
And  at  another,  they  entrusted  to  Mr.  Ellison 
d£100  for  defending  the  rights  of  the  Church  at 
Johnstown,  $250 


Grants  for  General  and  Public  purposes. 
1786,  3  lots  of  ground  for  the  use  of  the  Senior  Pastors 

of  the  Presbyterian  Congregations  in  this  city.* 
1765,  An  order  was  passed  relative  to  the  establishing 

a  ferry  from  Roosevelt's  Dock  to  Paulus  Hook, 

*  Lots  No.  255,  256  and  257  of  the  Church  Estate,  in  Robinson-street,  now 
Park  Place,  worth  at  least,  it  is  supposed,  at  the  present  day,  $50,000. 


12 


with  conveyances  of  2  lots  to  the  Corporation  for 
tlie  purpose.* 

1771,  Contribution  towards  building  a  market  on  Hud- 
son's river,t  $500 

1775,  Appropriation  of  two  lots  on  the  north  side  of  Ve- 
sey-street  for  a  pier  and  slip. 

1800,  Towards  building  a  market  in  Brannon-street,  $250 
Land  appropriated  for  the  same  purpose  in  Du- 
ane-street. 

*  It  being  represented  to  the  Board,  that  Alderman  Roosevelt  intended  to  pro- 
pose to  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  New- York  to  grant  and  convey  to  them  two 
water  lots  belonging  to  him,  adjoining  the  water  lots  of  this  Corporation,  upon 
eondition  that  the  ferry  across  Hudson  River,  between  this  city  and  Powles  Hook, 
should  be  established  and  fixed  from  his  said  lots,  but  inasmuch  as  the  said  two 
lots  will  not  be  sufiicient  to  accommodate  the  said  ferry  without  the  addition  of 
so  much  of  the  water  lots  belonging  to  this  Corporation  adjoining  the  said  two 
lots  and  of  equal  dimensions  therewith,  and  this  Board  considering  the  conven- 
iences and  advantage  arising  to  the  public  from  said  ferry  :  Thereupon  Resolved, 
That  the}'  will  also  grant  and  convey  to  the  said  city  Corporation  two  of  their 
lots  adjoining  the  said  two  water  lots  of  Alderman  Roosevelt,  and  of  equal  di- 
men.sions,  for  the  use  of  the  said  ferry,  but  for  no  other  use  or  purpose  whatso- 
ever, upon  condition  that  the  said  ferry  is  to  be  established  and  fixed  there 
forever ;  but  if  the  said  ferry  shall  be  removed  from  thence,  that  then  the  said 
two  water  lots  so  granted  by  this  Corporation  for  the  use  aforesaid,  shall  again 
revert  and  be  in  this  Corporation. 

t  Whereas,  The  Oswego  Market,  now  standing  in  the  Broadway,  is  ordered  to 
be  removed,  and  it  is  proposed  that  a  new  one  be  erected  on  part  of  the  lands 
upon  Hudson's  River  belonging  to  this  Corporation,  for  which  purpose  a  sub- 
scription paper  has  been  exhibited  as  well  by  a  number  of  the  Church  Tenants  as 
others  northwajd  of  Partition-street,  who  have  engaged  to  raise  about  Three 
Hundred  Pounds  towards  erecting  the  said  Market ;  Thereupon  it  is  resolved  and 
agreed.  That  this  Corporation  will  also  contribute  the  sum  of  Two  Hundred 
Pounds  towards  building  the  said  Market,  and  will  release  their  right  and  claim 
to  the  ground  on  which  the  same  is  proposed  to  be  built  for  the  use  of  a  Market 
forever,  upon  the  condilion  that  the  Mayor,  Aldennen  and  Commonalty  of  this 
city  will  grant  and  confirm  to  them  the  water  lots  agreeable  to  the  prayer  of  the 
petition  now  before  the  said  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  for  that  purpose. 


13 


And  also  for  a  market  in  Christophcr-btreet.  be- 
tsveen  Greenwich  and  Washington-streets. 
1810,  2  lots  of  ground  for  a  free  school  in  Hudson- 
street. 

1815,  A  further  grant  of  lots  of  ground  for  the  Free 
School  Society. 


Donations  and  alloicances  to  aged  and  iiifirm  Clergymen, 
and  others,  whose  incomes  toere  inadequate  to  their 


support. 

1795,  The  Rev.  G-eorge  H.  Speerin,  .       .       .       .  §  375 

1796,  The  Rev.  Wm.  Hammel,  paralyzed  at  an  early 
period  in  his  ministry,  and  rendered  incapable 
of  self-support,  who  received  an  allowance  of 
£100  per  annum  for  thirty  years,  .       .       .  7,500 

1796-99,  The  Rev.  Dr.  Dibble,     •  .       .       .  .625 

1796-99,        Rev.  Wra.  Ayres,       ....  625 

Rev.  Dr.  Bowden,        ....  500 

1797,  Mr.  A.  Lile,   1S5 

1801-1814,  The  Rev.  Daniel  Nash,         .        .       .  1,1.50 

1801,                Rev.  R.  G.  mitmore,    .       .       .  450 

1801-1804,         Rev.  Henry  Yan  Dyke,   .       .       .  1.025 

1801,  Rev.  Philander  Chase,  ...  250 
1803-1806,         Rev.  Peter  A.  Albert,  Rector  of  the 

Church  Du  St.  Esprit,   1,000 

1803-1807,   Rev.  Edmund  D.  Barry,  assistant  of 

the  same,   1,2,50 

1809,  Rev.  John  Reed,   200 

1810,  Rev.  Wm.  Harris,  Rector  of  St.  Mark's  Church,  1000 
1810,  Rev.  Wm.  Smith,  D.  D.,       .       .       .  .500 

1811-  13,  Rev.  Elias  Cooper,  Yonkers,      .               .  750 

1812-  13,  Rev.  \Villiam  PoweU,  of  Coldenham,       .  500 


14 


1  Q1  O 

-14,  Rev.  Cyru.s  Stebbins,       .       .       .       .  i 

^1,050 

1  01  O 

Rev.  Joseph  Perry,        ,       ...  . 

450 

Rev.  Jonathan  Judd,  ..... 

250 

1812. 

Rev.  John  Brady,  ...... 

125 

1812, 

Rev.  Asa  Cornwall,  ..... 

100 

1812- 

■1816,  Rev.  Ralph  Williston,  .... 

2,250 

1813, 

Rev.  Mr.  Prentiss,         .       .       .       .  , 

500 

1813-14,  Rev.  David  Butler,  

400 

iolo— 

±4:,  xtev.  IN.  13.  ijurgess,  ..... 

500 

1814, 

Rev.  John  Urquhart,  ..... 

150 

1814, 

Rev.  H.  J.  Feltus,  

250 

1826, 

Bishop  Croes,  ...... 

1832, 

Rev.  Moses  Burt,  ...... 

150 

1834, 

Rev.  Wm.  R.  Whittingham,  on  two  occasions, 
being  spontaneous  gifts  of  the  Vestry  to  him, 
on  his  going  to  Europe  for  the  recovery  of  his 

health,  ........ 

1,000 

1835, 

Rev.  Eleazer  Williams,  .... 

250 

1835, 

Rev.  Dr.  Hawks,  as  an  agent  of  the  General 
Convention,  to  collect  materials,  in  England, 

for  the  History  of  the  Church, 

1,500 

1835  to  1846,  To  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rudd,  a  faithful  and 

valued  servant  of  the  Church,  an  annuity  of 

$250,  .  '  

2,750 

1838, 

Rev.  Gr.  Mills,  

250 

1838, 

Rev.  Dr.   Seabury,  for  his  highly  acceptable 
services  in  the  Parish,  during  a  vacancy,  (in 

addition  to  his  salary),  .... 

1,000 

1843- 

1847,  Donations,  at  different  times,  to  the  Rev. 

Dr.  Lyell,  Rector  of  Christ  Church, 

1,000 

1846, 

Rev.  John  Grigg,  ..... 

300 

15 


Annuities  to  those  who  had,  in  a  great  measure,  spent  their 
lives  in  the  Parish,  and  retired  from  infirmity  and 
old  age. 

Annuity  of  £,AQQ  to  Bishop  Provoost,  from  1801  to 

1816,  $15,000 

of  i£500  to  Bishop  Moore,  from  1811  to 

1816,  6,250 

of  deeOO  to  Dr.  Beach,  from  1813  to  1829,  24,000 

And  to  the  families  of  those  who  had  died 

in  its  service,   36,900 

Gifts  to  officers  of  the  Church,  Sfc,  ^c,  for  their  faithful 
services,  in  addition  to  their  salary. 


1837-1838,   To  N.  Andrews,   Porter  of  the  Vestry 


Office,  

$400 

1839^1841,  To  the  Collector,  

600 

1839,  Peter  Erben,  Organist,  

300 

1839,  R.  Slack,  Sexton,  

150 

1841,  To  the  widow  of  R.  Slack,  .... 

250 

1841,  To  a  labourer,  at  Trinity  Church,  who  had  bro- 

ken his  arm,  

50 

King^s,  now  Columbia  College. 
1752, '  Grant  of  land  in  the  centre  of  the  city,  be- 
tween Murray  and  Barclay  streets,  and  ex- 
tending from  Church  street  to  the  river,  the 
present  value  of  which  is,  perhaps,  $400,000. 

A  great  portion  of  this,  however,  being  used 
for  College  purposes,  and  the  residue,  having 
been,  for  the  most  part,  leased  out  on  compar- 
atively low  rents,  by  the  State,  when  it  took 


16 

charge  of  the  College,  immediately  after  the 
revolution,  the  income  of  the  property  bears 
no  kind  of  proportion  to  its  value,  and  is  en- 
tirely inadequate  to  the  support  of  the  Insti- 
tution. 

Since  this  note,  however,  was  written,  in 
1847,  there  have  been  unexpected  changes  in 
the  value  of  the  property  still  remaining  at 
the  disposal  of  the  College,  from  the  gradual 
progress  of  business  towards  this  part  of  the 
city,  and  which  may,  therefore,  very  probably, 
make  the  present  value  of  the  grant,    .  $500,000 


Grants  and  Gifts  to  Institutions  for  the  Promotion  of  Re- 
ligion and  Learning. 

CHARITY  SCHOOL,   NOW  TRINITY  SCHOOL. 

In  the  early  history  of  the  school,  occasional  gra- 
tuities were  made  to  it  by  Trinity  Church 
towards  the  support  of  the  schoolmasters. 

In  1748,  ground  was  given  for  the  site  of  the 
school,  and  the  deficiency  in  the  subscrip- 
tions for  the  building  of  a  school-house 
made  up  by  the  Vestry. 

In  1748,  for  the  re-building  of  the  same  after  it 

was  burnt,     .       ...        •       •        •  $1>000 

1800,  A  debt  assigned  to  it  of  .       .       •       •    5,276  87i 

Seven  lots  of  land,  bounded  by  Lumber,  Rector, 
and  Greenwich  streets,  worth,  in  1847, 
$35,000,  but,  at  present,  not  less,  perhaps, 
'  at  a  very  low  estimate,  than  .  50,000 


IT 


Donation  of   $1,000 

Do      of   7,500 

Do      of   1,000 

1832,  Grant  of  five  lots  of  land,  on  Canal,  Var- 
ick,  and  Grand  streets,  at  a  mere  nominal 
rent,  equivalent  to  a  principal  sum  of,  at 

least,   20,000 


$85,776  871 


Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Religion  and  Learning. 

1802,  $  1,000 

32  lots  of  land  in  Barclay,  Warren,  Greenwich, 
Hudson,  Beach  and  North  Moore-streets,  esti- 
mated, in  1847,  at  $120,000,  but  worth  much 
more  at  the  present  time.    ....  120,000 

$121,000 

Rent  paid  for  the  African  Catechetical  Institute. 

 $  262 

1808,  Appropriation  towards  the  same,  .  .  .  3,000 
1819-1826,  Ground  rent  assumed  by  the  Vestry,  at 

$330  per  year,  2,210 

Additional  sum  guarantied  to  it  of     .       .  2,500 


$7,972 

General  Theological  Seminary. 
1825  or  1826,  Appropriation  towards  the  building,  $1,000 
$3,393  17,  the  amount  received  under  God- 
frey Coon's  Will  paid  to  the  Seminary  and 
$750  interest,  4,143  17 


18 


1835,  Grrant  towards  its  library,     .       .       .  $4,000 


$9,143  17 

Education  and  Missionary  Society. 

1833,  Missionary  branch,  $  300 

Ann.  allowance  of  $600  from  Dec.  1839  to  1843,  2,400 
1844,  Missionary  Fund  of  the  Diocese,      .       .       .  250 

1842,  Education  Branch,  600 

1843,   600 


$4,150 


Washington  College — Hartford,  Connecticut. 
1833,  $5,000 

Episcopal  Fund  of  the  Diocese. 

1836,  $30,000 

1838,  House  for  the  Episcopal  residence,   .       .  20,000 
1839  to  1843,  Allowance  to  the  Bishop  of  $1,600  per 

annum,       ......  6,400 

Donations  of  $1,200  on  two  different  occasions,  2,400 


$58,800 


City  Mission  Society. 
1832,  Annual  allowance  of  $600  from  1832  to  1834,  $  1,200 


1834-7,  Do      of  $1,100      .       .       .  3,300 

1837-46,  Do      of  $1,800      .       .       .  16,200 

1845,  Donation,        ....  600 

1847,                    Do   1,200 


$22,500 

\ 


19 


G-rants,  donations  and  loans  to  Churches. 

ST.  mark's  church,  new- YORK. 

1795,  ^12,500  00 

1798,  (There  are  no  means  of  ascertaining  from 
the  minutes  of  the  Vestry,  whether  this 
was  an  additional  grant  or  a  part  of  the 

former  one,)   5,088  81-j 

  181  87 

.       .       .       .  .       .  500  00 

Two  annual  donations  to  Dr.  Harris,  the 
Rector,  and  noticed  before  under  another 

head,   1,000  00 

To  which  sums  the  following  endowment 
in  land  on  the  Church  was  added  : 
5       lots  in  Warren-street, 

1  in  Church  " 
12       in  Reade  " 

3       in  Harison  " 

2  in  Greenwich  " 
5       in  Provoost  " 

28,  which  were  worth,  perhaps,  in  1847, 

$131,500,       ....        131,500  00 


$150,770  68i 
From  the  sudden  and  almost  magical 
change  in  the  value  of  property  between 
Fulton  and  Reade  streets,  in  consequence 
of  the  advance  of  business  to  that  portion 
of  the  city,  the  value  of  the  17  lots  in 
Reade  and  Warren  streets  at  the  present 
time  is  probably  doubled. 


20 


Grace  Church,  New-York. 


1804, 


1805,  

1810,  For  the  organ  . 

1811,  Assignment  of  a  mortgage  for 
Grace  Church  was  also  built  at  the  expense  of 

this  Corporation,  for  which  the  latter  received  no 
reimbursement,  except  in  t"he  sum  arising  out  of 
the  sales  of  pews,  amounting  to  $30,000. 

In  return  for  this.  Trinity  Church,  with  a  wise 
forecast,  and  most  benevolent  intent,  made  a  still 
further  grant  to  Grace  Church  of  several  lots  of 
land. 

7  of  which  were  on  Rector-street, 


$3,750 

1,000 
15,000 

1,500 

7,320  50 


on  Vesey, 
on  Barclay, 
on  Warren, 
on  Chambers, 
on  Church,  and 
on  Reade, 


25  in  all. 


In  referring  to  the  minutes  of  the  Vestry  for  the  prices  at 
which  lots  sold,  the  twelve  of  those  which  were  on  Chambers, 
"Warren,  Barclay,  and  Vesey  streets  were  worth  $40,000  at 
the  time ;  and  the  thirteen  on  Rector,  Church,  and  Reade 
streets,  at  least  $26,000.  The  value  of  the  whole  number 
was  stated  to  be,  in  1847,  $120,000.  But  at  the  present 
time,  it  is  doubtless  doubled. 


21 


St.  George's  Church. 

Donations  in  a  variety  of  ways,    .       .       .       So, 104  62 

 14,000 

  184  25 

  30,946  83 

Besides  the  grant  of  the  following  lots  of  land  : 

8  on  Reade  and  Church  streets, 
4  on  Grreenwich 
6  on  Murray 

9  on  Chambers 
4  on  Warren 
1  on  Barclay 
1  on  Beekrnan 

33  in  aU  ;  the  estimated  value  of  which,  in  1847, 
was  $170,000   170,000 

8220,235  70 

The  present  value  of  these  lots  is  at  least  two-fold  of  that 
sum. 

With  sucli  liberal  arrangements  in  the  case  of  Grace 
Church,  and  such  noble  gifts  and  ample  endowments 
to  St.  Mark's  and  St.  George's,  does  the  charge  of  nig- 
gardliness against  Trinity  Church  come  from  this 
quarter  with  decorum  and  grace  ?  Could  it  have  j^een 
supposed  that  this  munificent  Corporation  would  ever 
be  made,  as  it  has  lately  been  in  a  public  assembly, 
the  object  of  denunciation  and  menace,  of  sarcasm, 
vituperation,  and  scorn,  with  tongues  steeped  in  the 
gall  of  bitterness,  and  imaginations  luxuriating  in 


street, 

(« 
(( 

«  and 


22 


all  tlie  wantonness  of  abuse,  by  tlie  very  persons  wlio 
were  sharing  most  largely  in  its  bounty  ?  Whether 
sucli  a  violation  of  the  law  of  kindness  and  all  the 
amenities  of  social  life  can  be  reconciled  with  rifflit 
feeling,  common  courtesy,  and  Christian  fellowship,  I 
leave  to  the  calm  consideration  and  righteous  j  udg- 
ment,  not  only  of  those  who  hold  the  truth  in  love, 
but  even  of  candid,  worldly  men. 

But  this  is  not  the  oaly  view  of  the  case.  It  is  con- 
fidently believed,  and  as  it  is  thought  on  very  good 
grounds,  that  the  united  incomes  of  St.  Mark's  Church, 
Grace  Church,  and  St.  George's,  are  equal  at  least  to 
one-half  of  the  net  income  of  Trinity  Church  itself. 
If  this  conjecture  be  true,  then,  after  all  the  suitable 
arrangements  in  these  parishes  are  made,  and  all  need- 
ful expenses  incurred,  there  would  still  remain  a  cour 
siderable  surplus  beyond  their  own  proper  and  peculiar 
wants.  Now,  what  becomes  of  this  surplus  ?  To 
what  purposes  is  it  applied  ?  To  whom  is  it  a  boon, 
a  blessing,  and  relief?  I  have  never  learned,  neither 
have  I  ever  met  with  a  man  who  had.  If,  however, 
it  is  generously  and  beneficently  applied  to  the  good 
of  others,  it  can  then  only  be  said  that  their  repu- 
tation for  liberality  has  suffered  unjustly,  in  the  public 
estimation,  from  their  modesty.  But,  even  though 
they  may  have  acted  on  the  principle  of  not  letting 
the  right  hand  know  what  the  left  hand  doeth,  it  may 
still  be  doubted  whether,  in  proportion  to  their 
means,  they  have  exercised  their  bounty  on  a  more 
liberal  scale,  or  on  broader  and  more  comprehensive 


23 

grounds  than  Trinity  Churcli  has  done,  freely  and 
indiscriminately,  not  partially  and  inquisitorially,  nor 
with  the  nice  regard  to  the  peculiar  views  and  party 
feeling's  of  those  on  whom  it  is  bestowed,  which  too 
often  directs  and  controls  it  in  the  case  of  others. 
Oct.  13,  1855. 

^^^^^  • 

Grants,  Donations  and  Loans  to  other  Churches. 


1795,  St.  Peter's,  Westchester     ....  $750 

1796,  do.  do  500 

1809,  5  lots  of  ground  on  Reade,  Chambers  and  War- 
ren streets.    The  value  of  which  was,  in  1847, 

about   22,500 

But  now  at  least  double.   

24,750 

1796,  Christ  Church,  Hudson,  Columbia  Co.  .  2,000 
1802,  do.  do.         ...  1,500 

1796,  St.  Peter's,  Albany  6,250 

1801,       do.  do  300 

1797,  St.  George's,  Flushing,  L.  I.  .  .  .  1,250 
1820,  do.  do.  .  .  .  1,000 
1809,  3  lots  of  ground  in  Warren-street,  and  2  in 

Chambers-street,  worth,  in  1847,  about      .  19,500 
But  the  value  of  which  is  now  very  gi-eatly  in- 
creased.   

21,750 

1797,  G-race,  .lamaica,  L.  I.  .  .  .  .  ^,250 
1809,  3  lots  in  Lumber-street,  and  1  in  Rcade-street, 

worth  perhaps,  in  1847,  about    .       .       .  18,500 

But  now  much  more. 
1820,   1,000 

20,750 


24 


1792,  St.  James's,  Newtown,  L.  I.      .       .       .  $1,250 
1809,  1  lot  in  Reade-street,  1  in  Grreenwich-street, 
and  2  in  Lumber-street,  worth  perhaps,  in 

1847,   20,000 

But  at  present  much  more.   

21,250 


1797, 

St.  Anne's^  Brooklyn,  L,  1. 

1,000 

1804, 

do.              do.   .       .       ,       ,  , 

2  000 

1809, 

2  lots  of  frroiinr]  in  diamTiPTS-^strpp.f  wnr+li  npr- 

haps,  in  1847, 

But  at  present,  double  that  sum 

1  fi  nnn 

1798, 

Christ  Church,  Poughkeepsie 

1,250 

1810, 

do.          annual  allowance  of  $250  for  5 

years  ....... 

1,250 

1813, 

do.                   do.           for  the  Rector 

250 

1797, 

Trinity  Church,  New  Rochelle  . 

1,250 

Trinity     do.     Fishkill  Village 

1,000 

1813, 

500 

For  the  Rector  

250 

St.  Philip's  Church,  in  the  Highlands 

750 

1797, 

St.  Peter's      do.     Peekskill  . 

750 

1797, 

St.  James's     do.  Goshen 

1,250 

1814, 

do.          do.  do. 

625 

1833, 

do.          do.         do,  ... 

1,500 

1797, 

To  the  Church  at  New-Stamford 

500 

180%  St.  Peter's  do.  Stamford 

200 

1808, 

St.  John's  do.              Stamford,  Conn. 

300 

1797, 

To  the  Church  at  Salem  or  Campden 

500 

1797, 

Constantia,  Lake  Oneida  .... 

625 

1830, 

do.              do.  .... 

500 

1797, 

To  the  Church  at  Ballston 

625 

25 


1797, 

To  the  Church  at  Duanesburgh 

$750 

1804, 

do.         do.  do. 

1,000 

1806, 

do.         do.  do. 

500 

1807, 

do.         do.  do. 

250 

1800, 

To  the  Church  on  Staten  Island,  north  side 

1,000 

1802, 

St.  Andrew's,  Staten  Island 

1,000 

1800, 

For  parsonage  at  Yonkers 

500 

1801, 

do.               do.  ... 

250 

1800, 

do.  Rye 

750 

1813, 

Christ  Church,  at  Rye 

500 

St.  James's,  Milton,  Saratoga  Co. 

248 

For  the  Rector  ..... 

150 

1802, 

Church  at  Burlington 

60 

Church  at  Otsego  .... 

60 

1803, 

St.  Luke's,  Catskill  .... 

2,000 

1804, 

do.          do.  .... 

1,000 

1811, 

do.          do.  .... 

2,600 

1804, 

St.  George's,  Schenectady,  ^ 

1,000 

1808, 

do.  do  

300 

1809, 

do.             do.      ...  . 

300 

1804, 

Church  at  Philipsburgh        .  "  . 

300 

Churches  at  Lansingburgh  and  Waterford 

2,500 

St.  Paul's  Church,  at  Troy 

2,000 

Church  at  North-Hempstead 

2,000 

Churches  at  Bedford  and  New- Castle  . 

1,000 

1808, 

do.             do.  do. 

150 

1804, 

St.  Paul's,  Charlton  .... 

1,000 

1836, 

do.          do.  .... 

1805, 

St.  Stephen's,  New- York 

300 

1807, 

2  lots  in  Warren-street,  to  ditto,  worth,  in 

1847,   

13,000 

But  now  at  least  double  that  sum. 

Bonds  granted  to  the  same,  amounting  to 

7,194 

26 


1813,  Donation  of  $250 


do.     to  the  Rector         .       .       .  250 
1829,  Annual  allowance  of  $600,  from  Nov.  1, 

1828,  to  Nov.  1,  1842,        .       .       .  8,400 

Donation   1,500 

1831,       do   500 

1842  to  1846,  Annual  allowance  of  $300        .  1,200 


1846,  Annual  allowance  increased  to  $500  from 
Nov.  1. 

$32,594  50 

1806,  Christ  Church,  Cooperstown,  (on  conditions 

which  it  is  presumed  were  fulfilled)      .  1,500 

1806,  St.  John's,  Huntington,  L.  I.       .       .  300 

1807,  do.  do.         do.  .       .  250 
1807,  St.  Michael's,  Bloomingdale,  N.  Y.,  a  dona- 
tion towards  the  building  of         .       .  2,000 

1809  to  1813,  Revenue  for  St.  Michael's  and  St. 

James'  of  $500  per  annum         .       .  2,000 
1809,  Grant  of  6  lots  of  ground  to  ditto,  in 
Chambers,  Vesey,  and  Warren  streets, 
worth  perhaps,  in  1847,       .       .       .  39,000 
But  now  at  least  double  that  sum. 
1809,  St.  James's,  Hamilton  Square,  N.  Y.,  a 

donation  towards  the  building  of  .       .  3,000 
1813,  To  satisfy  existing  debts,      ...  800 
G-rant  of  4  lots  of  ground  to  ditto,  in 
^     Chambers  and  Barclay  streets,  worth  per- 
haps, in  1847,     .       .       .       .       .  26,000 
But  now  double  that  amount. 
To  these  two  churches   respectively,  if 
they  continued  connected,  a  donation  of 
$700  each,  1,400 


27 


In  June,  1 825,  by  resolution,  the  allowance  to  these 
churches  was  restricted  to  the  difference  between 
$1,700  and  the  aggregate  amount  of  rents  then 
payable,  or  thereafter  on  any  renewals  of  the  leases 
payable  on  these  10  lots  granted ;  and  as  soon  as 
the  rents  should  in  the  aggregate  amount  to  $1,700, 
the  annual  allowance  was  to  be  wholly  discontinued. 
From  1826  the  allowance  was  gradually  reduced  to 
about  $150  per  annum,  and  entirely  ceased  in 
1832   $900 

$75,100 

1805,  Christ  Church,  New- York,  4  lots  in  Barclay-st., 

worth,  in  1847,  about       ....  24,000 

But  now  at  least  double  that  sum. 

Communion  plate,  worth,  perhaps,      .       .  100 

1809  to.  1846,  $500  per  annum  to  the  Rector       .  18,500 

1813,  $250  towards  the  support  of  the  Rector     .  250 

1814,  $250  do  do  do  .  .  250 
1827  to  1835,  Annual  allowance  to  Christ  Church  of 

$600    4,800 

1835,  Grant  of   25,000 

1846,  Allowance  to  Assistant  Minister  .  .  300 
1843  to  1847,  Donations  to  the  Rector*       .       .  1,000 

$74,200 

1807,  Caroline  Church,  Setauket,       ...  800 

Islip  ^500 

Trinity,  Utica  ....  2,000 

1809,  3  lots  of  ground  to  ditto,  in  Reade-street,  and 

1  in  Clark,  present  value  about  .  .  12,500 
Since  materially  increased. 


*  Noticed  before  under  another  head. 


28 


1807 
±o\j  /  J 

Tn  ihp  nVinrpVi  at  Portsmouth  N  H  i 

n,ooo 

Trinity,  Greneva  ..... 

1,500 

loio, 

do         do.     for  the  Rector  . 

250 

1807 

St.  Peter's  and  St.  Philip's 

1,250 

1808, 

Expense  of  the  printing  of  the  Proceedings  of 

the  G-eneral  Convention*          .       .            304  21 

1809, 

St.  John's,  Johnstown,  .... 

400 

1810, 

Trinity,  Newark,  N.  J.,  . 

1,000 

1811 
101  J., 

Zion  Church,  N.  Y.,  $900  per  annum  granted 

to  it  for  5  years,  ..... 

4,500 

1  Q1 1 
loll. 

do       do  ..... 

720 

1  fil 

do       do  ..... 

5,000 

1820, 

do       do  ..... 

20,000 

1831, 

do       do  ..... 

8,000 

1836, 

do       do  ..... 

1,000 

1846, 

do       do     annual  allowance  of  $300  from 

May  1st,  

150 

$39,370 

1811, 

Trinity,  Fairfield,  

500 

1813, 

do          do      ann.  all.  for  7  years  of  $250, 

1,750 

do          do           do        do.  for  the  Rector, 

1,750 

do          do          do        do.  further  sum  of 

$250,  

1,750 

$5,750 

1811, 

Caroline  Church,  Brookhaven,  . 

500 

And  an  annual  allowance  for  2  years  of  $125, 

250 

1812, 

To  the  Church  at  Hamilton,  St.  Lawrence  Co., 

3,000 

1812  to  1846,  St.  James',  Hydo  Park,  ami.  allowance 

of  $250,   

8,500 

1813, 

St.  James's,  North  Salem, 

1,000 

*  For 

many  years  the  expense  of  printing  the  Journal  and  other  documents  of 

both  the  General  and  State  Conventions  was  defrayed  by  Trinity  Church 

29 


1813,  Trinity  Church,  Rensselaerville,  for  the  Rector,  $250 

Clirist  Church,  Hampton,  for  the  Rector,    .  150 

St.  Paul's,  Paris,  for  the  Rector,        .       ,  250 

St.  Peter's,  Aurelius,  for  the  Rector,          .  250 

1813,  Trinity,  Athens,   3,000 

St.  Matthew's,  Unadilla,    ....  1,400 

Christ  Church,  Manlius,     ....  1,000 

1818    St.  George's,  Newburgh,    ....  3,000 

1819,  St.  Jolin's,  Canandaigua,           .       .       .  1,500 

To  the  Church  at  Windham,      ...  500 

1830,  Du  St.  Esprit,  annual  allowance  cf  $250,  from 

1830  to  1843,    3,250 

1830  to  1846,  St.  Andrew's,  Harlem,  $300  per  ann.,  4,800 

1832,       do              do          do       grant  of     .  4,000 

1840,       do             do          do          do          .  100 


$8,900 

1831,  St.  Clement's,  annual  allowance  of  $600  from 

Nov.  1,  1830,  to  Nov.  1,  1842,  .  7,200 

1836,       do     do     grant  of       ...       .  15,000 
1844,       do     do     the  old  organ  of  St.  John's  given 
to  it. 

1842,       do     do     annual  allowance  of  $400  from 

1842  to  1846,  .       .       .       .       .  1,600 


$23,800 

1820,  St.  Luke's,  New- York,  3  lots  in  Hudson-street, 
1827,        do       2  lots  adjoining — and 

1834,         do       3  lots  more,  value  at  least,  in  1847,  30,000 

Smce  materially  increased. 
1827  to  1831,  Annual  allowance  of  $400,     .        .  1,600 
1831  to  1842,     do  do      increased  to  $600  6,600 


30 


1838,  Grant  of   $10,000 

1842  to  1846,  Ann.  allowance  reduced  to  $400,  1,600 

1846  to  1847,   do       do        increased  to  $500,  500 

1846,  Donation,   1,500 


$56,800 

1827  to  1842,  St.  Mary's,  Manhattanville,  annual 

alloAvance  of  $300,   4,500 

1842  to  1845,  Annual  allowance  reduced  to  $200,  600 
1836,   1,289  13 


$6,389  13 

St.  Thomas',  New- York,  annual  allowance  of 
$600  from  May  1,  1828,  to  Dec.  12,  1842,  $8,100 
do  gift  of   .       .       .       .       .  3,000 

do  grant  of        ....  20,000 

Annual  allowance  of  $300  from  Dec.  12,  1842, 
to  same  date,  1846,  ....  1,200 


$32,300 


1827,  All  Saints,  N.  Y.,  annual  allowance  of  $600 


from  July  30,  1827,  to  Dec.  12,  1842, 

9,000 

1829, 

do 

loan  of      ....  . 

8,000 

1831, 

do 

donation  of        ...  . 

5,00D 

1838, 

do 

grant  of     ....  . 

6,000 

1839, 

do 

additional  grant  of     .     ■  . 

2,000 

1842, 

do 

ann.  all.  of  $300  to  May,  1845,  . 

750 

1845, 

do 

do      of  $500  from  May  1,  1845, 

to  Nov.  1 

1846,  

750 

$31,500 


31 


1829  to  1842,  Church  of  the  Ascension,  N.  Y.,  $600 

per  annum,  $7,800 

1842  to  1846,  $300  per  annum,  .  .  .  1,200 
1835,  1  lot  in  Vesey-street,  worth,  in  1847,  about  6,500 

But  now  at  least  double  that  sum.   

$15,500 

1835,  St.  Philip's  Church,  New-York,  .       .  9,000 

1838,  do  do        .       .       .  2,000 

1826  to  1843,  Annual  ground  rent  of  $330  paid  by 

Trinity,  5,610 

1^43,  Annual  allowance  of  $300,       ...  300 

1843  to  1846,  Annual  allowance  of  $400,    .       .  1,200 


$18,110 

1831,  St.  John's,  Delhi,  950 

1832,  St.  Peter's,  G-reenwich,  donation  of     .        .  1,000 
Annual  allowance  of  $300,  from  Feb.  4,  1832, 

to  1834,    600 

1833,  Donation  of  1,000 

1834,  Aug.  4,  ann.  all.  of  $600,  from  1834  to  1842,  4,800 

1837,  Grant  of   25,000 

1842,  Annual  allowance  of  $500,  from  1842  to  1846,  2,000 


,34,400 

1832, 

St.  Peter's,  Auburn,  .... 

2,500 

St.  Luke's,  Rochester,  $600  per  ann.  for  2  years, 

1,200 

1833, 

St.  John's,  Brooklyn,  grant  of  . 

4,000 

1833, 

Christ  Church,  Ballston,  .... 

500 

St.  Paul's,  Albany,  grant  of      .       .  . 

5,000 

Trinity,  Ulster,  

1,000 

St.  John's,  Angelica,  Alleghany  Co., 

800 

32 


1833,  St.  John's,  Monticello,  ....  $1,500 
St.  Andrew's,  Walden,  ....  600 
St.  Mark's,  Hunt's  Hollow,  ...  500 
St.  John's,  Sheldon,  donation  of  .  .  300 
Trinity,  Watertown,  grant  of    .       .       .  1,000 

1834,  do           do           do        .       .       .  500 

1833,  St.  John's,  Medina,  ....  1,000 
St.  Paul's,  Mosquito  Cove,  L.  I.,       .       .  500 

1834,  Calvary,  Cairo,  Greene  co.,  .  .  .  500 
St.  Mark's,  Le  Roy,  Genessee  co.,  .  .  500 
Trinity,  Constantia,  Oswego  co.  .  .  500 
Trinity,  Hector,   200 

1833,  St.  Paul's,  Syracuse,        ....  1,000 

1834,  do            do   800 

Grace,  Rochester,     .....  3,500 

St.  John's,  Sodus,  Wayne  co.,    .       .       .  450 

St.  Peter's,  Westfield,  Chautauque  co.,       .  320 

St.  Anne's,  Fishkill  Landing,    ...  500 

1837,  do           do          do         .       .       .  250 

1838,  do  do  do  .  .  '  .  500 
1834,  Christ  Church,  Gilbertsville,  Otsego  co.,     .  400 

Trinity  Church,  Elmira,  Chemung  co.,       .  500 

1836,           do              do            do        .       .  300 

1834,  Zion  Church,  Greene,  Chenango  co.,  .       .  500 

Grace  Church,  Mount  Upton,  Livingston  co.,  250 

Trinity  Church,  Seneca  Falls,  Seneca  co.,  .  500 

1836,  do  do  do  .  500 
1834,  Christ  Church,  Sherburne,  Chenango  co.,  .  500 
1833,  St.  John's,  Kingston,  Ulster  co.,        .       .  1,000 

1837,  do            do           do       .       .       .  500 

1839,  do  do  do  .  .  .  200 
1833,  Zion  Church,  Greene,  Wayne  co.,      .       .  500 


33 


1833,  Emmanuel  Church,  Norwich,  Chenango  co.,  $500 
1836,  do.  do.  do.       .  250 

1833,  Grrace  Church,  Whiteplains,  Westchester  oo.,  750 

1833,  St.  Matthew's,  Jersey  City,  N.  J.,    .       .       .  1,000 

1834,  St.  Paul's,  Turin,  600 

Church  of  the  Nativity,  N.  Y.,         .        .  .4,000 

1835,  do.  do  1,000 

Annual  allowance  of  $300  for  about  10  years,  .  3,000 

1838,   1,000 

1846,   300 


$9,300 

Annual  allowance  increased  $100  from  Nov.  1. 

1835,  Zion  Church,  Wappinger's  Creek,  Dutche.ss  CO.,  .  500 

1836,  do.  do.  do.  .  .  250 
1835,  Emmanuel  Church,  Little  Falls,  Herkimer  co.,  1,500 

St.  John's,  Cohoes,  Albany  co.,  .  .  .  500 
St.  Mark's,  Jamesville,  Onondaga  co.,      .       .  400 

1834,  Christ  Church,  Gruilford,  Chenango  co.,  .  .  500 
Zion  Church,  Rome,  Oneida  co.,  .  .  .  500 
St.  James's,  Catlin,  Tioga  co.,  ....  300 
St.  Michael's,  Geneseo,  Livingston  co.,     .       .  500 

1835,  Christ  Church,  Danby,  Tompkins  co.,  .  250 
St.  Paul's,  Tompkinsville,  Staten  Island,  .        .  2,000 

1833,  Christ  Church,  Oswego,  1,000 

Christ  Church,  Walton,  Delaware  co.,  .  .  500 
St.  Peter's,  Oriskany,  Oneida  co.,  .  .  .  500 
The  Apostolic  Church,  Geddes,  Onondaga  co.,  .  500 
St.  James's,  Hammond  Port,  Steuben  co.,  .  .  500 
St.  Thomas's,  Bath,  Steuben  co.,  .  .  .500 
St.  Paul's,  Durham,  Greene  co.,  .  .  .  500 
St.  Paul's,  Brownville,  Jefferson  co.,         .       .  500 


34 


1833,  Trinity,  Fredonia,  Chautauque  co.,  .  .  .  $500 
St.  Paul's,  Big  Flats,  Tioga  co.,  .  .  .  .  500 
Calvary,  Homer,  Cortland  co.,  .  .  .  500 
Christ  Church,  Morristown,  St.  Lawrence  co.,  .  500 

1835,  Zion  Church,  Avon,  Livingston  co.,  .  .  .  500 
Christ  Church,  Lockport,  Niagara  co.,  .  1,000 

St.  John's,  Fort  Hamilton,  King's  co.,  .  .  500 
Trinity  Church,  Centreville,  Ontario  co.,  .  .  300 
St.  John's,  Medina,  Orleans  co.,       .       .       .  1,500 

1835,  St.  John's,  Troy,  1,000 

St.  Thomas',  Mamaroneck,      .       .       .  .300 

1836,  do.  do  500 

Calvary,  New- York,  1,600 

1837,  do  ann.  all.  of  $400  from  1837  to  1842,  .  2,000 
1842,  do  do  S300  from  1842  to  1846,  .  1,200 
1847,       do      Grant  of  18,000 

1836,  Emmanuel  Church  at  Otsego,  Otsego  co., .  .  750 
St.  Paul's,  Holland  Patent,  Onondaga  co.,  .  750 
Trinity,  Potsdam,  St.  Lawrence  co.,  .  .  1,500 
St.  John's,  Ellicotsville,  Cattaraugus  co., .  .  600 
Christ  Church,  Oyster  Bay,  L.  I.,    .       .       .  600 

St.  George's,  Astoria,  1,000 

St.  Paul's,  Waterloo,  Seneca  co.,      .       .       .  250 

1837,  do  do  do       ...       .  400 

1836,  St.  Paul's,  Sing  Sing,  Westchester  co.,     ,       .  2,000 

Trinity,  Brooklyn,  L.  I.,  1,500 

St.  Paul's,  Lewistown,  Niagara  co.,  .  .  .  600 
St.  Paul's,  Peekskill,  Westchester  co.,      .       .  750 

1837,  do  do  do  ...  .  250 
1836,  St.  Mark's,  Candor,  Tioga  co.,  .       .       .       .  400 

St.  Luke's,  Half  Moon,  Mechanicsville,  Sara- 
toga CO.,        .......  350 

St.  Paul's,  Hoboken,  N.  J.,     .       .       .       .  1,000 

St.  John's,  Mount  Morris,  Livingston  co.,         .  750 


35 


St.  James's,  Batavia,  Grenesee  co.,  .  $1,000 

St.  Peter's,  Bainbridge,  Chenango  co.,  .  .  300 
St.  Stephen's,  Olean,  Cattaraugus  co.,  .  .  750 
Christ  Church,  Paterson,  Putnam  co.,  .  .  750 
St.  Mark's,  PennYann,  Yates  CO.,  .  .  .1,000 
Trinity,  Fayetteville,  Onondaga  co.,  .  .  400 
Zion,  Palmyra,  Wayne  co.,      .       .       .       .  500 

1837,  St.  Paul's,  Saratoga,  100 

St.  Bartholomew's,  N.  Y.,  ann.  all.  of  $600  from 

1837  to  Dec.  12,  1842,   3,300 

  20,000 

1842,  Ann.  all.  of  $300,  from  Dec.  12,  1842,  to  May 

1,  1846,  .      .       .  ^  1,050 

1846,  Ann.  all.  of  $600,  from  May  1  to  Nov.  1,  .300 


$24,650 

1837,  St.  George's,  Hempstead,        .       .       .  .500 
St.  John's,  Cold  Spring  Harbour,     .       .  .500 

Trinity,  West  Troy,  800 

 200 

St.  John's,  Johnson's  Settlement,  Chemung  co.,  300 
Christ  Church,  Tarrytown,  Westchester  co.,     .  1,000 

1837,  St.  Anne's,  Port  Jackson,  Montgomery  co.,       .  1,500 

1838,  do  do  do    ...  500 
St.  Paul's,  Poughkeepsie,        ....  2,500 

1839,  do  do  2,500 

St.  Paul's,  Waterloo,  Seneca  co.,  .  .  .  400 
St.  Peter's,  Peekskill,  W.  C,  .  .  .  .  1,000 
St.  Paul's,  Flatbush,  King's  co.,  L.  I.,  .  .  1,000 
St.  Peter's,  Lithgow,  Dutchess  co.,  .  .  .  200 
Grace,  Lyons,  Wayne  co.,       .       .       .       .  2,000 

1838,  Church  of  the  Messiah,  N.  Y.,  ann.  all.  of  $300 

to  commence  Dec.  1,  1837,     .       .       .  .300 


36 


1839,  $150  paid  $150 

Ann.  all.  to  commence  anew  from  Oct.  1,  1838. 

1838,  Church  of  the  Annunciation,  N.  Y.,  ann.  all.  of 

$600  from  1838  to  1842,        .       .       .  .2,400 

1839,   6,000 

1842,  Ann.  all.  of  $400  from  1842  to  1846,      .       .  1,600 


$9,400 

St.  Luke's,  Brooklyn,  1,500 

1843,  Churcli  of  the  Redemption,  N.  Y.,    .       .  .375 
1844  to  1846,    ...  ....  800 

1845,  St.  Mark's,  Williamsburgh,  L.  I.,  ann.  all.  of 

$300  from  May  1,  1845,  to  Nov.  1,  1846,       .  450 

1845,  Prot.  Ep.  Ch.  Miss.  Society  for  Seamen,  ann.  all. 

of  $250  from  1844  to  1846,     .       .       .  .500 

1846,  Additional  allowance  of  $250  from  Nov.  1,  1846. 

1845,  St.  Simon's,  N.  Y.,  200 

1846,  do  do  200 

1845,  Holy  Apostles',  N.  Y.,  300 

1846,  do.  do  5,000 

St.  G-eorge  the  Martyr,  N.  Y.,  .       .       .       .  250 

1846,  Church  of  the  Messiah,  N.  Y.,  .       .       .       •  125 
St.  L,uke's,  Rossville,  Staten  Island,        .       .  1,500 

Christ  Church,  Troy,  2,500 

Chapel  for  Soldiers,  on  Governor's  Island,  appro- 
priation made,  but  not  yet  paid,      .       .       .  500 
Christ  Church,  Sag  Harbour,  ....  500 
Christ  Church,  Marlborough,  Ulster  co.,    .       .  300 

Grace,  Cherry  Valley,  Otsego  co  300 

St.  Thomas's,  Hamilton,  Madison  co.,  .  •  300 
St.  James's,  Fort  Edward,  Washington  co.,  .  300 
St.  Mark's,  Malone,  Franklin  co.      .       .       •  400 


37 


Church  of  the  Cross,  Ticonderoga,  Essex  co.,    .  $400 

St.  Paul's,  Pleasant  Valley,  Dutchess  co.,        .  500 

1847,   Church  of  St.  George  the  Martyr,  N.  Y.,  .       ,  250 

Church  of  the  Grood  Shepherd,  N.  Y.,       .       .  200 

St.  Mark's,  Willi^msburgh,     ....  200 


GHfts,  Grants  and  Loans  from  1847  to  1855  inclusive. 
Jan.  11,  1847,  Christ  Church,  Dr.  Lyell,        .       .  250 
Annual  allowance  of  ,$400  from  May  1,  • 
1848,  to  Nov.  1,  1855,    .       .       .  3,000 


$3,250 


April  12,          Church  of  the  Epiphany,  to  the  Rector,  75 
Annual  allowance  of  $400  from  the 

1st  of  May,  1847,  to  Nov.  1, 1849,    .  600 

1850,              Donation,  $300       ....  300 
Annual  allowance  of  $300  from  1852 

to  1855,   900 

June  12,  1848,   6,500 


$8,375 

St.  And  rew's,  Harlem,  annual  allow- 
ance of  $300  from  1847  to  1855,  .  2,400 

Holy  Apostles',  annual  allowance  of 

$300  from  1847  to  1855,     .       .  2,400 

April  12,  Holy  Evangelists',  to  the  Rector,     .  75 

Annual  allowance  of  $400  from  the 
1st  of  May,  1847,  to  the  1st  of  Nov., 
1849,     ....  600 

June  12,  1848,   6,500 


38 


June  12,  1848,  Annual  allowance  of  $300  from  Nov. 

1,  1849,  to  Nov.  1,  1851,     .       .  $600 

Annual  allowance  of  $500  from  1851 
^ol85i,      ....  1^500 

Annual  allowance  of  $1,200  from 
1854  to  1855,     .       .       .  1,200 

For  the  purchase  of  St.  George's  Cha- 
pel,  in  Beekman-street  and  ground, 
made  over  to  the  Church  of  the 
Holy  Evangelists — assessments,  re- 
pairs, alterations,  and  other  ex- 
penses,      ....       55,660  33 

Besides  an  engagement  to  build  a 
Sunday  School-room  after  the  wid- 
ening and  regulating  of  Cliff-street. 


$66,135  33 

St.  Matthew's  Church,  to  the  Rector,  75 
Annual  allowance  of  $400  from  the 
1st  of  May,  1847,  to  the  1st  of  Nov., 

1849,   600 

Annual  allowance  of  $300  from  Nov. 

1,  1849,  to  Jan.  1854,  .  .  1,250 
Annual  allowance  of  $100  additional 
for  five  years,  to  commence  1st  of 
May  next — of  this  increased  allow- 
ance of  $500,  the  sum  of  $750  is, 
I  suppose,  already  paid,       .       .  750 

$2,675 

Zion,  N.  Y.,  annual  allowance  of  $300 

from  1847  to  1855,     .       .       .  2,400 
Nov.  11,  1850,  St.  Georgc'fj,  Bee'kman-street,  to  main- 
tain services,  400 


April  12, 


Jan.,  1854, 


39 


June  28,  1847,  Church  of  the  Nativity,  towards  the 


building  of  the  same, 

$5,000 

Nov.  26,  1849,  Towards                  do  . 

4,000 

Jan.  8, 



175 

Oct.  8, 



175 

Nov.  12, 

175 

May  13,  1850, 

350 

June  10, 

1,211 

Oct.  3,  1853, 

For  Parochial  School, 

200 

May  8,  1854, 

150 

May  24, 

Towards  Parochial  School, 

100 

Nov.  13, 

do           do           do           .  . 

200 

March  12, 1855,  

150 

Oct.  8, 

Annual  allowance  of  8300  from  1S47 

250 

to  May  1,  1852,  .... 

1,350 

Annual  allowance  of  S400  from  May 

1,  1852,  to  Nov.  1,  1855,  . 

1,400 
^4,886 

Sept.  13,  1847, 

St.  John's,  Stoclcport,  Columbia  Co., 
All  Saints',  annual  allowance  of  $500 

1,000 

from  1847  to  1855,  . 

4,000 

St.  Stephen's,  annual   allowance  of 

$500  from  1847  to  1855,  . 

4,000 

June  14,  1847,  Trinity  Church,  Albany,  annuity  of 

$300  for  five  years. 

Sept.  13, 

Aimuity  increased  to  $350  until  the 

Vestry  pay  the  sum  of  $5,000,  . 

5,000 

July  12,  1847,  St.  Cornelius's,  Grovernor's  Island,  to 

Jime  27,  1849,  donations,  $500  . 
Jan.  13,  1851,  donation,  $200  .... 


500 
200 


40 


Jan.  12,  1852,    .    ^200 

Feb.  14,  1853,   200 

Jan.   9,  1854,   200 

Jan.   8,  1855,     .        .......  200 

il,500 

Jan.  10,  1848,  St.  Luke's,  New- York,       .       .  1,300 
Continuance  of  the  ann.  allowance  of 

$400  to  the  1st  of  May,  1850,       .  800 

Oct.  13,  1851,   400 

From  1851  to  1855,  Annual  allowance  of  $900    .  3,600 

July   9,  1855,  Rev;,  Mr.  Tuttle,        ....  500 

$6,600 

St.  Philip's,  annual  allowance  of  $400, 

from  1847  to  1855,    .       .       .  3,200 

April  23,  1849,  Grant  of   500 

$3,700 

St.  Peter's,  annual  allowance  of  $400, 
from  1847  to  1855,    ....  3,200 
Feb.  14,  1848,  Church  of  the  Messiah,  colored  congre- 
gation, donation,        ....  125 

Feb.  12,  1849,   125 

Dec.  10,   125 

July  15,  1850,   125 

Oct.  24,  1853,  from  the  1st  of  May  next,         .       .  200 

Jan.    9,  1854,   200 

Feb.  13,   200 

Dec.  11,   125 


$1,225 


41 


Feb.  14,  1848,  St.  Simon's,  Grerman  Church,  New- York, 

donation,          .....  200 

Mar.  12,  1849,   200 

Jan.    9,  1854,   200 

Dec.  11,    200 


Feb.  14,  1848,  To  the  Church  at  Honesdale,  marble 
font,  designed  by  Ball  Hughes. 

April  10,  Mrs.  Dr.  Lyell,  .  .  .  .250 
May    8,  Mrs.  Wm.  H.  R  100 


May    8,  Grace  Church,  Brooklyn,  annuity  of 


il,000  for  15  years,       .       .  15,000 

June  12,          St.  Paul's,  Richmond,  Western  N.  Y.  .  500 

Christ  Church,  Shelburne,  do.            .  400 

June  12,  1848,  Church  of  the  Holy  Martyrs,     .       .  200 

Oct.    8,  1849,   200 

July  10,          Donation,    200 

April  8,  1850,   700 

May  13,    200 

Nov.  Ih    200 


$1,700 

June  12,  1848,  Grace  Church,  South  Oyster-Bay,  an 

annuity  of  $100  for  4  years,  .       .  400 


Sept.  19,  James  A.  Sparks,  Clerk  of  St.  Paul's 

Chapel,  300 


42 


Sept.  19,  Church  of  the  Annunciation,  annual 

allowance  of  $400,  from  1846  to 

1848,   $800 

Do    $900,  from  1848  to  March, 

1853,   4,500 

Afterwards  interest  on  $20,000,  till  that 

sum  be  paid,  .       .       .  20,000 

Mar.  21,  1853,   5,000 


$30,300 

St.  Clement's,  ann.  allowance  of  $400, 

from  1847  to  1855,        .       .  $3,200 

St.  Mary's,  Manhattanville,  ann.  all.  of 

$200,  from  1848  to  1855,       .       .  1,400 

St.  Barnabas',  N.  Y.,  ann.  all.  of  $200. 
Mar.  12,  1854,  Rev.  Mr.  Weaver,  to  pay  off  debt  of 

St.  Barnabas',        ....  200 

Church  of  the  Advent,  ann.  allowance 
of  $200,  from  May  1,  1847,  to  Nov. 

1,  1855,   1,500 

Sept.  17,  1848,  Trmity  Church,  Granville,  annuity  of 
$75  till  the  principal  of  $1,000  be 
paid,  1,000 


Oct,    9,  1848,  Church  of  the  Intercession,  Carmans- 
ville,  annuity  of  $100  till  the  princi- 
pal of  $1,000  bo  paid,    .       .       .  1,000 
Annuity  of  $200,  from  Nov.  1,  1853, 

to  Nov.  1,  1855,     ....  400 


43 


Nov.  11,  The  Rev.  Mr.  Clapp,  .       .       .  $100 

Jan.  12,  1852,   100 

Deo.  11,  Mrs.  Dr.  Rudd,         ....  125 

St.  John's,  Clyde,  Western  N.  Y.,       .  250 
Church  at  Clayville,  Oneida  co..  Western 
N.  Y.,  annuity  of  $100  until  $1,000 

be  paid,  1,000 

St.  James's,  Pulaski,  .  .  .  ,200 
Bethesda  Church,  Saratoga,  an  annuity 

of  8200  for  5  years,      .       .  ,1,000 

Mar.  12,  1855,  Emmanuel  Church,  N.  Y.  .       ,  800 

Ann.  all.  of  $300,  from  1847  to  1855,  2,400 
June  10,  1855,   100 

$3,300 

Feb.  12,  1849,  Christ  Church,  Sag  Harbor,  .  .  700 
July   9,  1855,  In  four  annual  instalments  of  $200,    .  800 

$1,500 

Feb.  12,  St.  Paul's,  WUliamsburgh,  .  .  200 
Dec,  10,    200 

$400 

Seamen's  Mission,  $600  per  annum, 

from  1847  to  1853,        .       .       .  3,600 

do  $800  per  annum,  from 

May  1,  1853,  to  Nov.  1,  1855,       .  2,000 

$5,600 

April  9,  1849,  Plot  of  ground  in  Trinity  Cemetery,  to     '  , 

the  N.  Y.  Institution  for  the  blind. 
Sept.  16,  1851,       do       for  the  Orphan  Asylum. 


44 


Nov.  10,  Plot  of  ground  in  Trinity  Cemetery,  for 

the  Prot.  Epis.  Mutual  Benefit  Society. 

Dec.   8,  do       for  the  Rector  of  St.  Ste- 

phen's, and  his  successors. 

Do       to  the  Society  for  the  relief 
of  aged  and  indigent  females. 

Mar.  27,  1854,        do       for  the  Orphan's  Home. 

April  23,  1849,  Emmanuel  Church,  Adams,  W.  N.  Y.,  $250 

Oct.    8,  Grace  Church,  Norfolk,      .       .  .500 

Oct.    8,  St.  John  the  Baptist,  annual  allowance 

of  $200,  from  1849  to  1855,  1,200 

Oct.  14,  1850,   800 

$^2,000 

Nov.  26,          Rev.  H.  JeUiff,  .              ...  100 

Sept.  17,  1850,   100 

Nov.  11,    100 

Feb.  10,  1851,  ........  100 

Nov.  10,    100 

May   9,  1853,   100 

June  11,  1855,  .              .  50 

$650 

Feb.  11,  1850,  Church  of  the  Transfiguration,  annual 
allowance  of  $200,  from  Nov.  1, 
1849,  to  May  1,  1852,    .       .  .500 
Do       of  $300,  from  May  1,  1852,  to 

Nov.  1,  1855,        ....  1,050 

Mar.   8,  1852,   200 

Sept.  25,    200 


$1,950 


45 


Feb.  11,  1850,  St.  Paul's,  Owego,  W.  N.  Y.,  $70  per 

annum  for  8  years,        .       .       .  $560 
St.  Stephen's,  Schuylerville,       .       .  200 

May  13,          Church  of  All  Angels',       .       .  .150 
Annual  allowance  of  $200,  from  1852 
to  1855,   700 


S850 

June  10.  Trinity,  Windham,   8200,  increased 


May  9,  1853,  to     .       .       .  .300 

To  Samuel  Maynard,  a  member  of  the 

choir  of  Trinity  Church,        .       .  150 
Christ  Church,  Manlius,     .       .  .100 
July  15,  St.  Thomas',  Mamaroneck         .       .  600 

Sept.  17,  1850,  St.  Paul's,  Flatbush,       .       .  .250 
Church  of  the  Good  Shepherd,  annual 
allowance  of  $200  from  1847  to 

1855,    1,600 

Rev.  Ralph  Hoyt       ....  100 

Mar.  10, 1851,   100 

April  12, 1852,   100 

Oct.  11,    100 

Mar.  14, 1853,   100 


$2,100 

Oct.  14,  St.  James's,  Theresa,  W.  N.  Y.,  .       .  250 

Nov.  2,  Christ  Church,  ^yllitehall,         .       .  1,000 

Feb.  11,  Rev.  Benjamin  Evans,  .       .  100 

.Jan.  13,  1851,  100 

Mar.  27,  1854,   300 


46 


Feb.  10,  Bishop  Upfold,  an  annuity  of  $250  for 

three  years,  on  account  of  past  ser- 
vices in  the  Parish,        .       .       .  $750 
Dr.  Ogilby,  on  his  journey  to  Europe  in 
pursuit  of  hoalxh,  .       .        .  500 

Mar.  10,  Grift  for  the  design  of  the  church  at 

Copake,  Columbia  county,      .       .  100 

Jan.  12,  1852,   150 

Ap.  14,  St.  Paul's,  Kinderhook,      .       .       .  1,000 

May  28,  1851,  Christ  Church,  Troy,        .       .       .  2,500 
Foreign  Mission  at  Cape  Palmas,  an 
annuity  of  $250  until  $5,000  be 

paid,  5,000 

Ofi'ering  at  the  Communion  for  Dio- 
cesan Missions      ....  3,000 
July  14,  Trinity  Church,  Watertown,     .       .  600 

Trinity,  Redwood,  ....  200 
Dr.  Schroeder,  ....  1,000 

Mar.   8,1852,  .750 

July  14,  St.  Luke's,  Brooklyn,  in  six  annual  in- 

stalments,     .....  450 
Oct.  13,  1851,  Grace  Church,  Norfolk,  for  the  Rev. 

Mr.  Hanson,  ...       212  50 

Nov.  10,  Grace  Church,  Canton,       .       .  250 

Nov.  14,  Annuity  in  perpetuity  of  $3,000  to 

Geneva  College,  until  $50,000  be 

*  paid,   50,000 

Dec.    8,  St.  James's,   "Williamsburgh,  colored 

congregation,  ....  100 
Grace  Church,  South  Middletow^n,  .  1,750 
Grace,  Albany,  in  two  equal  annual 

payments,  ]  ,000 


Dec.  10           Grace  Church,  Nunda,      .       .       .  $400 

Jan.  12,  1852,  St.  Paul's,  Brooklyn,         ...  200 

Dec.  13,    200 

Dec.  ]  9,  1853,  Allowance  to  be  continued  of  $200,    .  200 

Dec.  11,  1854,   200 

$800 

Feb.   9,           Zion  Church,  Rome,  ....  1,000 

April  12,          All  Saints',  Brooklyn,       ...  300 

June  14,  1852,  Trinity  Church,  Fishkill,  ...  500 

Trinity  College,  Toronto,  Canada  West,  1,000 

July  12,           Calvary,  Utica,        ....  500 
Grace,  Waterville,   towards  Church 

and  Parsonage,      ....  1,000 

Grace,  South  Oyster-Bay,  .       .       .  400 

St.  Mary's,  Beekman,       .       .       .  400 

Church  and  school,  at  Dearman,  .  1,000 
St.  George's,  Flushing,  in  four  annual 

instalments,          ....  2,000 

Nov.   8,          Trinity,  Fairfield,      ....  100 

Dec.  13,           St.  Thomas',  Hamilton,  Western  N.Y.,  200 

Rev.  Mr.  Leonard,     ....  150 

Jan.  16,  1853,  Rev.  Mr.  Gallaudet,  for  Deaf  Mutes,  300 

Dec.  19,                     do   300 

Dec.  11,  1854,  St.  Ann's,                         do.,       .  200 


$800 

St.  George  the  Martyr,  from  May  1, 

1853,  to  May  1,  1854,   .       .       .  300 

Feb.  14,  1853,  St.  John's,  Clyde,  Western  N.  Y.,  800 


48 


* 


.  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  i^.  Y.,  from 
Nov.  1,  1853,  to  Nov.  1,  1855,  an- 
nual allowance  of  $200,       .       .  $400 
St.  Timothy,  N.  Y.,        do        do    .  400 
Holy  Innocents,  N.  Y.,    do       $250,  500 

Feb.  14,  Church  of  the  Redeemer,  at  Yorkville, 

an  annuity  for  5  years  of  $250. 

April  9,  1855,  Interest  on  the  mortgage  for  $5,000, 

$350,   5,000 

Do    also  on  the  second,  for  $4,000, 

$280,   4,000 

$9,000 

Feb.  14,  St.  James's,  Scarsdale,  towards  a  par- 


sonage,       ....       .  1,000 
Mar.  14,          Church  at  Coxsackie,              .       .  500 
St.  Peter's,  Forrestville,  Western  N. Y.,  250 
St.  Mark's,  Newark,  Western  N.  Y.,   .  500 
Nashotah  Mission,  in  five  annual  in- 
stalments,    .....  2,500 
Mar.  21,           Church  of  the  Messiah,  Rhinebeck,  .  1,000 
May    9,           Mrs.  Dr.  Ogilby,  an  annuity  of  $200 

for  5  yeats,   .       .  ,     .       •       •  1,000 

Oct.  3,  For  Diocesan  Missionary  F«*id,  1853,  50 
Dec.  19,  1853,  Annual  allowance  to  Mrs.  Dr.  Parks, 

$1,000,   2,000 

Jan.    9,  1854,  St.  James's,  Goshen,  annuity  of  $140 

for  5  years,  ^^ .       .       .  *  >       •  700 

Zion  ChurcV^rady  Hill,  annuity  of 

$140  for  5  years,  .       .       .  700 


*  #  49 


Jan.  9,  1849,  St.  Matthew's,  N.  Y.,  annually  $200, 

to  commence  the  1st  of  May  next,  1,000 

Jan.    9,  1854,  St.  Mark's,  Williamsburgh,       .       .  6,000 
Annual  allowance  of  $300,  from  1847 

,    to  1855,   2,400 


*  $8,400 
Dec.  11,  Annual  allowance  of  $1,200  to  the 

Provisional  Bishop,  until  condition- 
ally the  principal  sum  of  $20,000 

be  paid,   20,000 

Feb.  12,  1855,  Dr.  Bowden's  family,  an  annuity  of 

$100  for  5  years,  ....  500 
April  16,  Mrs.  Moses  Marcus,  ....  250 

July   9,  Church  at  Sharon  Springs,        .       .  500 

Rev.  A.  Guion,  '300 

Church  of  the  Messiah,  G-reenbush, 

Rensselaer  co.,  .  .  .  .  1,500 
Christ  Church,  Hudson,  .  .  .  5,000 
St.  Luke's,  Jamestown,  Chautauque 

county,  .....  1,000 
All  Saints',  Milton,  to  the  Rev.  Mr. 

Hawksley,  300 

Annual   allowance   to   Mrs.  Bishop 

Wainwright,  from  1854  to  1855,    .  2,000 

There  is  aaother  striking  instance  of  the  liberality 
and  zeal  of  this  venerable  Corporation,  which  is  de- 
serving of  particular  notice.  On  the  Sunday  after  the 
Consecration  of  Trinity  Chapel,  which  took  place  on 
the  17th  of  April,  the  Rector  of  the  parish  preached  a 
sermon  appropriate  to  the  occasion,  and  concluded  his 


* 


50 

discourse  in  the  following  earnest  and  impassioned 
strain,  whicli  seems  almost  to  have  been  prophetic : 

"  But,  my  brethren,  carried  away  by  the  subject,  and  scarce- 
ly knowing  where  to  stop,  I  have  made  a  hurried  sketch  of 
the  past,  and  have  left  but  a  moment  for  the  future.  Man's 
foresight  is  but  folly,  and  that  future  is  solely  in  the  hands  of 
Grod,  to  whom  we  cheerfully  submit  it.  But  liow  beautiful 
and  glorious  does  it  nevertheless  appear  !  A  new  and  important 
work  is  yet  before  us.  In  the  course  of  things,  and  in  the 
providence  of  G-od,  nearly  the  whole  of  the  lower  part  of  the 
city  has  been  brought  under  our  spiritual  care,  and  as  it  has 
thus  become  our  especial  province,  so  it  is  a  source  of  grateful 
reflection  that  we  have  it  in  our  power  to  discharge  the  duty 
which  is  set  before  us.  The  condition  and  character  of  our 
congregations  have  materially  changed,  but  the  population 
has  not  decreased.  The  gospel  may  still  be  preached  to  the 
poor,  for  whom  our  Lord  had  a  peculiar  concern  ;  to  the 
strangers  who  visit  our  city,  and  who  there  find  it  as  freely 
given  as  it  was  freely  received ;  to  the  young  men  engaged 
in  mercantile  or  mechanical  pursuits,  who,  in  many  instances, 
far  from  their  paternal  roof,  and  the  wholesome  influences  of 
home,  are  exposed  to  temptations  in  every  form,  and  who 
therefore  stand  in  especial  need  of  the  pastoral  care  and  ten- 
der guidance  of  the  ministers  of  God  ;  to  the  casual  attendants 
led  thither  by  curiosity  or  convenience,  who,  unaccustomed  to 
o?ir  service,  and  ignorant  of  our  system,  are  there  very  often 
disabused  of  their  prejudices,  and  receive  their  first  impres- 
sions in  favor  of  the  Church.  With  these  several  classes  our 
church.cs  may  once  more  be  filled  to  overflowing. 

"  With  wisdom  and  liberality  also  on  the  part  of  the  Vestry  - 
in  establishing  Parochial  Schools,  and  in  carrying  out  all  need- 
ful  arrangements  for  the  prosecution  of  this  work  ;  with  self- 


51 


denial  and  patience,  with  untiring  labor,  with  unconquerable 
perseverance,  and  unquenchable  zeal  on  the  part  of  the  clergy  ; 
with  the  hearty  co-operation  of  zealous  young  men  and  devout 
and  benevolent  women  in  this  Missionary  cause  ;  and  above 
all,  with  the  help  of  Grod,  without  whom  all  labor  is  fruitless, 
and  all  efforts  are  vain  ;  it  is  impossible  to  conceive,  though 
delightful  to  anticipate,  the  amount-of  good  which  may  yet  be 
done." 

These  pious  wishes  and  heartfelt  aspirations  seem 
about' to  receive  their  fulfilment  much  sooner  than 
was  hoped  for  at  the  time  of  their  utterance.  What 
was  then  only  a  fond  expectation,  arising  out  of  the 
well-known  liberality  and  zeal  of  Trinity  Church,  has 
now,  in  a  measure,  become  a  blessed  reality.  She  has 
i*eadily  adapted  herself  to  her  new  relations,  and  en- 
larged her  plans  to  fulfil  the  measure  of  her  duties. 
The  number  of  the  clergy  in  the  parish  has  been 
nearly  doubled,  with  a  view  to  the  increase  of  its 
usefulness,  and  a  more  thorough  attention  to  the 
spiritual  and  temporal  wants  of  the  poor  and  the 
needy,  the  helpless  and  friendless,  the  desolate  and 
oppressed.  New  Sunday  Schools  have  been  formed, 
with  an  auspicious  beginning,  in  addition  to  those  which 
are  already  in  active  and  successful  operation.  A  com- 
mittep  had  already  been  appointed  in  reference  to  the 
establishment  of  Parochial  Schools,  for  the  purpose  of 
uniting  religious  instruction  with  intellectual  culture, 
of  sanctifying  all  the  faculties  and  powers  of  the  mind, 
and  of  mating  knowledge  a  blessing  and  not  a  means 
of  perversion  and  abuse,  as  it  too  often  is  in  its  unhah 


52 


lowed  state,  if  not  an  absolute  curse.  There  is  like- 
wise a  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Vestry  to  furnish 
every  reasonable  facility,  and  provide  all  additional 
aid  which  may  be  found  needful,  for  the  furtherance 
of  the  great  work  which  is  set  before  them,  without 
an  undue  and  "  disproportioned"  retrenchment  in  their 
bounty  to  others. 

And  let  it  here  be  remarked,  so  far  as  our  own  Com- 
munion is  concerned,  that  with  one  solitary  exception, 
this  field  has  been  left  to  Trinity  Church  alone,  and 
abandoned  by  all  others  ;  that  even  this  exception,  of 
St.  George's  Chapel  in  Beekman  street,  would  not 
have  existed  but  for  the  kind  interposition  of  Trinity 
Church,  which  saved  it  from  destruction,  when  it  was 
about  to  be  sold  and  razed  to  the  ground  ;  that  after 
it  was  rescued  and  placed  under  a  separate  organiza- 
tion, it  could  not  have  been  kept  up  except  by  her 
fostering  care  and  continual  aid ;  that  this  aid  has 
since  been  increased  to  the  full  amount  of  the  salary 
of  the  Rector,  and  that  being  thus  relieved  from  its 
heaviest  burden,  it  has  now  been  made  a  Free  Church, 
under  the  care  of  the  same  self-denying  man,  who  is 
pre-emiueutly  fitted  for  its  peculiar  and  important 
services. 

Is  it  meet  and  becoming  then  in  those  who  have 
deserted  the  ground  which  Trinity  Church  so  nobly 
maintains,  to  taunt  her  with  sluggish  inactivity  and 
unfaithfulness  in  her  duties  ? 

These  liberal  arrangements,  and  this  ample  provision 
for  the  relief  of  the  spiritual  destitution  of  a  large  body 


53 


of  people  who  would  otherwise  have  had  no  helper 
nor  guide,  is  noticed  in  connection  with  the  enumera- 
tion of  her  bounties,  since  the  objects  for  which  they 
were  made,  were  not  merely  of  a  parochial,  but  in  a 
great  measure  of  a  public  and  missionary  character. 

According  to  the  statement  in  the  History  of  Trinity 
Church,  the  aggregate  amount  of  its  gifts,  loans,  and 
grants,  rating  the  lands  at  their  prices  in  1847,  con- 
siderably exceeded  Two  Millions  of  Dollars.  From  the 
very  material  increase  within  the  last  few  years,  in  the 
value  of  the  lands  with  which  many  of  the  churches 
about  half  a  century  since  were  so  amply  endowed, 
and  from  the  additional  bounties  which  in  such  a  va- 
riety of  ways  have  recently  been  bestowed,  this  amount 
may  very  safely  be  stated  at  the  present  tim'e  at  Two 
Millions  and  a  half;  an  amount  more  than  equal,  as  is 
verily  believed,  to  two-thirds  of  the  value  of  the  Estate 
(excepting  the  church  edifices  and  burial-grounds) 
which  now  actually  remains. 

Now,  could  it  have  been  supposed,  with  these  facts 
before  the  eyes  of  the  world,  and  these  benefits  rising 
up  to  the  memory  of  all  who  had  gratitude  enough  to 
feel  them,  that  the  charge  of  niggardly  parsimony  and 
miserly  hoarding  could  ever  be  brought  against  Tiinity 
Church  ?  Is  it  nothing  to  have  had  public  spirit 
enough  to  co-operate  by  its  bounty,  in  the  improve- 
ment of  the  city  wherein  it  was  placed  ?  Is  it  nothing 
to  have  contributed  to  the  propagation  of  the  gospel 
at  an  early  day  in  the  destitute  portions  of  the  Dio- 
ces^e,  and  in  later  times  to  the  City  Mission,  the  Sea- 


54 


meii'd  Mission,  and  all  the  kindred  objects  both  at  home 
and  abroad  ?  Is  it  nothing  to  have  relieved  clergymen 
whose  incomes  were  inadequate  to  their  support,  and 
of  others  bowed  down  with  infirmity  and  age,  who 
would  otherwise  have  had  no  relief  in  the  evil  days 
which  were  coming  upon  them,  and  no  solace  in  their 
sufferings  and  wants  ?  Is  it  nothing  that  the  faithful 
men  who  had  spent  the  best  portion  of  their  lives  in 
the  immediate  service  of  the  Parish  itself,  should  have 
been  enabled  by  its  bounty  to  pass  the  rest  of  their 
days  in  freedom  from  anxiety,  and  to  end  them  in  com- 
fort and  peace  1  Is  it  nothing  that  the  families  of  those 
Avho  had  died  in  its  service  were  neither  forgotten  nor 
neglected,  l)ut  soothed  by  its  sympathy  in  their  sor- 
rows, and  a  measure  of  bounty  unknown  in  all  others  ? 
Is  it  nothing  that  gifts  and  grants  have  been  made  for 
the  promotion  of  religion  and  learning  to  a  variety  of 
Institutions,  from  the  very  elements  of  knowledge  in 
primary  schools  to  the  highest  perfection  of  it  in  our 
colleges  ?  Is  it  notliing  to  have  contributed  largely 
towards  the  dignity  and  comfort  of  those  whom  God 
has  made  overseers  of  the  Church,  in  this  extensive  and 
laborious  Diocese?  Is  it  nothing  that  the  descendants 
of  the  poor,  the  helpless,  and  friendless  Africans  have 
been  remembered,  and  in  some  reasonable  measure 
relieved  in  their  common  education  and  their  spiritual 
wants  ?  Is  it  nothing  that  churches  in  our  city  have 
been  reared  prematurely,  which  in  the  absence  of  the 
bounty  of  Trinity  Parish  might  have  waited  for  a  long 
course  of  years  without  being  brought  into  existence ; 


55 


that  others  throughout  the  State,  with  so  feeble  a  be- 
gmning  as  scarcely  to  have  lived  either  in  conception 
or  hope,  have  been  brought  into  being,  and  are  now 
healthy  and  strong ;  and  that  scores  of  them  have  been 
relieved  and  saved,  which  would  otherwise  have  per- 
ished as  an  untimely  abortion  1 

There  is  not  enough,  however,  in  all  this,  with  the 
vastness  of  its  amount,  and  the  variety  of  its  details, 
to  satisfy  the  minds  of  the  perverse  and  captious,  nor 
of  those  perhaps  in  some  instances,  at  least,  who  enter- 
tain no  feelings  towards  Trinity  Church  but  those  of 
respect  and  good- will.  She  has  nob  indeed  done  all 
that  unreasonable  desire  could  covet,  nor  inventive  in- 
genuity suggest,  nor  unlimited  power  and  boundless 
benevolence  could  accomplish.  Her  bounty  has  not 
taken  the  form  in  which  each  one  has  seen  fit  to  mould 
it,  nor  flowed  in  the  channel  into  which  each  one  would 
turn  it.  But  nevertheless  it  will  be  acknowledged  by 
all  liberal  and  candid  men,  that  it  has  been  a  great 
and  a  wide-spread  blessing. 

But  after  all,  who  are  the  proper  judges  of  the  dis- 
position of  her  bounty,  but  the  dispensers  themselves  ? 
Here  are  two  and  twenty  men  freely  elected  every 
year  by  the  Parish,  and  chosen  with  especial  regard  to 
their  fitness  for  the  office,  and  who  are  responsible  for 
the  faithfal  discharge  of  it  to  their  constituents,  their 
conscience,  and  their  God.  They  give,  to  a  very  great 
ree,  their  time,  their  attention,  and  thoughts  to  the 
vast  and  complicated  concerns  of  this  great  Corpora- 


56 


tion  without  compensation,*  and  very  often  to  the  de. 
triment  of  their  private  aifairs.  They  regard  them- 
selves as  the  stewards  of  a  sacred  trust,  for  the  execu- 
tion of  which  as  for  every  other  gift  of  God,  they  are 
accountable  to  the  Giver.  And  they  endeavor  to  ad- 
minister it  with  liberality  and  kindness,  yet  with  wis- 
dom and  prudence,  not  squandering  in  a  day  what 
should  be  a  perennial  blessing  throughout  all  genera" 
tions. 

They  may  sometimes  be  mistaken  in  their  views, 
and  err  in  their  course,  for  they  are  fallible  men,  but 
nevertheless  there  are  those  among  them  who  in 
strength  of  intellect,  in  soundness  of  judgment,  in  prac- 
tical wisdom  and  practical  benevolence,  and  in  all  the 
qualities  of  mind  and  heart  which  constitute  excellence, 
as  men  and  as  Christians,  may  be  advantageously  com- 
pared with  the  proudest  of  their  objectors. 


*  The  Comptroller  and  Clerk  alone  excepted. 


57 


WARDENS  AND  VESTRYMEN 

OF  TRINITY  CHURCH, 
From  the  foundation  of  the  Parish  to  the  present  time. 

Thomas  Wenham,*  "Warden  from  1697  to  1704.  Vestryman 
from  1704  to  1706.  Warden  again  from  1706  to  1709.  Ves- 
tryman again  in  1709. 

Coin.  Robert  Lurting,t  Warden  in  1697.  Vestryman  from 
1698  to  1706.  Warden  again  in  1706.  Vestryman  again 
from  1707  to  1714. 

Coin.  Caleb  Heathcote,*  Vestryman  from  1697  to  1699  ;  and 
also  from  1711  to  1714. 

William  Merret,^  Vestryman  from  1697  to  1700. 

John  Tudor,ll  "        in  1697,  and  also  from  1700 

to  1703,  and  re-elected  again  in  1705. 

James  Emott,  Vestryman  from  1697  to  1711,  and  re-elected 
in  1719. 

William  Morris,ir  Vestryman  from  1697  to  1704. 
Thomas  Clarke,*  *,  Vestryman  in  1697.   Warden  from  1698 
to  1700. 

Ebenezer  Wilson,  Vestryman  from  1697  to  1705. 

Samuel  Burt,  "       in  1697. 

James  Evets,  "       from  1697  to  1700. 

*  Member  of  his  Majesty's  Council. 

tMany  years  Alderman  of  Dock  AVard,  first  Ward  of  the  City,  and  Mayor  of 
New- York  from  1722  to  1735. 

JMember  of  Council  and  Mayor  of  the  City  from  1711  to  1714. 

6  Member  of  Council,  and  Member  of  Assembly  for  several  years  for  the  City 
of  New- York,  and  Mayor  of  the  same  from  1704  to  1709. 

II  Recorder  of  New- York  from  1704  to  1709. 

IT  Chief  Justice  of  the  Province. 

*  *  Member  of  Council. 


58 


Nathaniel  Marston,  Vestryman  in  1697,  in  1705,  from  170S 
to  1718,  in  1724,  and  from  1727  to  1731. 

Michael  Howden,  Vestryman  from  1697  to  1702,  and  from 
1704  to  1710. 

John  Crooke,  Vestryman  from  1697  to  1703,  and  again 
from  1705  to  1708.  Warden  from  1708  to  1713.  Vestryman 
again  in  1713. 

William  Sharpas,*  Vestryman  from  1697  to  1699,  from 
1704  to  1706,  and  again  in  1710. 

Lawrence  Read,  Vestryman  in  1697,  and  in  1709. 

David  .Tamison,t  "  from  1697  to  1704.  Warden 
from  1704  to  1706.  Vestryman  again  from  1706  to  1709, 
and  Warden  again  from  1709  to  1714. 

William  Huddleston,  Vestryman  from  1697  to  1714. 

Gabriel  Ludlow,  "        in  1697,  from    1700  to 

1702,  and  in  1704. 

Thomas  Burroughs,  Vestryman  from  1697  to  1702. 

William  Janeway,  "        in  1697,  and  from  1702  to 

1704. 

John  Merret,  Vestryman  in  1697. 
Jeremiah  Tothill,  Vestryman  from  1698  to  1705. 
Matthew  Clarkson,!     "        from  1698  to  1700,  and  in 
1702. 

William  Nicol^  Vestryman  from  1698  to  1702. 

William  Anderson,      "       from  1698  to  1717. 

Richard  AVillet,  »  from  1698  to  1700.  Warden 
from  1700  to  1704.  Vestryman  again  from  1704  to  1707, 
Warden  again  in  1707,  and  Vestryman  again  froni  1708  to  1721. 

*  Member  of  Council. 

t  Recorder  of  the  City  from  1712  to  172.5,  and  Attorney  -  General  of  the 
Province, 
t  Secretary  of  the  Province,  1G98. 

1^  .■\ssociatc  Judge,  Member  of  Assembly  from  Suffolk  County,  and  repeatedly 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Assembly. 


I 


59 


Robert  Walters,  Vestryman  in  1698. 
Giles  Gaudinean,       "       in  1698. 
Jonathan  Hutchins,    "       from  1699  to  1702. 
Jonathan  Guest,        "       from  1699  to  1701. 
Thomas  Ives,  "       from  1699  to  1703,  and  from 

1706  to  1708. 

Lancaster  Syms,  Vestryman  from  1699  to  1704,  and  in 
1705. 

Roger  Baker,  Vestryman  from  1700  to  1702. 

Robert  Skelton,      "       from  1700  to  1703. 

Peter  Mathews,      "       in  1701,  and  in  1705. 

Jonathan  Corbet,    "       from  1702  to  1705. 

William  Peartree,*  Vestryman  from  1702  to  1704.  Warden 
from  1704  to  1706.  Vestryman  again  from  1706  to  1710, 
and  again  in  1711. 

William  Smith,t  Vestryman  from  1702  to  1704. 

Robert  Lettice  Hooper, $  Vestryman  in  1702,  and  from  1719 
to  1725. 

Jon.  Theobalds,  Vestryman  from  1702  to  1704. 
Jon.  Burrow,  "        from  1703  to  1705. 

Thomas  Davenport,  "  from  1703  to  1710,  and  from 
1711  to  1717. 

Richard  Harris, Vestryman  in  1703,  from  1706  to  1709, 
and  from  1710  to  1715. 

Matth.  Ling,  Vestryman  in  1703. 

Earth.  Le  Reux.!!  in  1703,  and  from  1709  to  1714 

William  Bradford,  Vestryman  from  1703  to  1710. 


*  Mayor  of  the  City  from  1703  to  1708. 

+  Alderman  of  the  West  yVard  for  several  years. 

t  Colonel  in  the  British  Army. 

9  Assistant  Alderman  of  the  East  Ward. 

II  Assistant  Alderman  of  the  West  \^'ard. 


60 


Sampson  Shelton  Broughton,*  Vestryman  in  1704,  from 
1706  to  1708,  and  from  1709  to  1712. 

Daniel  Honan,  Vestryman  from  1704  to  1706. 
John  HutchinSjt      "        in  1704. 
Patrick  Crawford,    "        in  1704. 

Thomas  Clarke,*  "  from  1705  to  1715.  Warden  in 
1715.  Vestryman  again  from  1716  to  1718.  Warden  again 
in  1718.  Vestryman  again  from  1720  to  1726,  and  again 
from  1727  to  1735. 

Col.  Bayard,^  Vestryman  from  1705  to  1712. 

Elias  Neau,  "        from  1705  to  1714. 

May  Biokley,ll  Vestryman  from  1705  to  1714.  Warden  from 
1714  to  1719.  Vestryman  again  from  1719  to  1721,  and 
Warden  again  from  1721  to  1724. 

Mr.  Bret,  Vestryman  from  1706  to  1709. 

Mr.  Regnier,  "  from  1706  to  1709,  from  1710  to  1712, 
and  in  1713 

Mr.  Leathes,  Vestryman  from  1706  to  1708. 

Thomas  Byerly,      "       in  1708,  and  in  1710. 

Cornelius  Lodge,     "       from  1708  to  1720. 

Abraham  Moore,     "       from  1709  to  1715 

William  White,      "       from  1710  to  1712. 

Peter  Barberie,  Jr.,  Vestryman  in  1710,  and  again  in  1712. 
Warden  from  1713  to  1715.  Vestryman  again  from  1715  to 
1722.  Warden  again  from  1722  to  1726.  Vestryman  again 
from  1726  to  1728. 

*  Recorder  of  the  City  from  1702  to  1704,  and  Attorney  -  General  of  the 
Province. 

t  Alderman  of  the  West  Ward. 
t  Secretary  of  the  Province,  1705. 
()  Alderman  of  Dock  Ward. 

II  Attorney-General  of.  the  Province,  1705,  and  Recorder  of  the  City  from  1708 
to  1712. 


61 


Andrew  Loran,  Vestryman  in  1710,  and  again  from  1715 
to  1717. 

Jos.  "Wright,  Vestryman  from  1710  to  1712,  and  again  from 
1713  to  1727. 

John  Reade,  Vestryman  in  1711,  and  again  from  1713  to 
1719.  Warden  from  1719  to  1721.  Vestryman  again  from 
1721  to  1733,  and  from  1738  to  1740. 

Mr.  Jamain,  Vestryman  in  1711. 

John  Stephens,  from  1710  to  1715. 

Henry  Vernon,  from  1712  to  1731. 

John  AValter,  in  1712,  1714  to  1716,  and  1717  to  1722. 

Simeon  Soumaine,  from  1712  to  1750. 

Robert  Elliston,*  from  1713  to  1726,  in  1736,  and  from 
1740  to  1756. 

Thomas  Noxon,  from  1713  to  1732. 

William  Howard,  from  1713  to  1715,  and  from  1718  to 
1720. 

Gilbert  Ash,  from  1714  to  1718. 
Mr.  Birchfield  in  1714. 
WiUiam  Davis,  from  1714  to  1716. 
George  Cocke,  from  1715  to  1718. 

Joseph  Reade,  Vestryman  from  1715  to  1717,  and  again 
from  1718  to  1721.  Warden  in  1721.  Vestryman  again 
from  1722  to  1756.  Warden  again  from  1756  to  1770. 
Vestryman  again  in  1770. 

John  Moore,t  Vestryman  from  1715  to  1719.  Warden 
from  1719  to  1721.    Vestryman  again  from  1721  to  1728. 

George  Clarke,  Warden  from  1716  to  1718. 

John  Hamilton,  Vestryman  from  1716  to  1719. 

Richard  Worsom,       "       from  1716  to  1718. 


*  Collector  of  his  Majesty's  Customs. 

j-  Alderman  of  the  South  Ward  for  eight  years. 


62 


Alexander  Moore,  Vestryman  from  1716  to  1718,  from  1719 
to  1725,  and  from  1726  to  1729. 

Benjamin  Hildreth,  Vestryman  from  1717  to  1727. 
James  Dixon,  '«        in  1718. 

Jno.  Auboyneau,  "        in  1718,  and  from  1725  to 

1745. 

Jno.  Balme,  Vestryman  from  1718  to  1724,  in  1726,  and 
in  1728. 

Edward  Man,  Vestryman  from  1718  to  1720. 

Henry  Wileman,     "        from  1719  to  1727. 

George  Talbot,       "        from  1720  to  1724. 

Robert  Crooke,       "        from  1720  to  1727. 

Joseph  Murray,*  "  from  1720  to  1726.  Warden 
from  1726  to  1758. 

William  Dugdale,  Vestryman  from  1721  to  1725. 

Robert  Livingston,  Jr.,1-  Vestryman  from  1721  to  1761. 

Jos.  Robinson,  Vestryman  from  1722  to  1724.  Warden 
from  1724  to  1756.    Vestryman  again  from  1756  to  1759. 

John  Crooke,  Sen.,  Vestryman  in  1724,  and  from  1727  to 
1731. 

Edward  AntiU,  Vestryman  from  1724  to  1726. 
Thomas  Hopkins,     "        in  1725. 

Jno.  Searle,  "        from  1725  to  1727,  and  from 

1728  to  1735. 

James  Searle,  Vestryman  from  1725  to  1746. 
John  Waldron,  "  from  1725  to  1732. 
John  McEvers,      "        from  1726  to  1752. 

*  Mr.  Murray  was  ;i  lawyer  of  great  eminence  in  tlie  city  of  Xew-York,  about 
the  middle  of  the  last  century.  He  was  one  of  the  Council,  and  Attorney- 
General  of  the  Province,  and  was  much  celebrated  in  his  day  as  a  constitutional 
lawyer. 

t  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Assembly. 


63 


John  Chambers,  Vestryman  from  1726  to  1757,  and  Warden 
from  1757  to  1765. 

Stephen  Delaucey,''"  Vestryaiau  from  1727  to  1742. 

Augustus  Jay,t  Vestryman  from  1727  to  1746.  ^ 

John  Moore,  Jr.,       "        from  1728  to  1750. 

Peter  Vallette,  "        from  1729  to  1731. 

John  Brown,  "        from  1729  to  1739. 

William  Ricketts^     "        from  1731  to  1736. 

William  Hamersley,  Vestryman  from  1731  to  1753. 

Charles  Crooke,  "        from  1731  to  1764. 

Nathaniel  Marston,  Jr.,  Vestryman  in  1731,  and  from  1735 
to  1770,  and  Warden  from  1770  to  1779. 

Anthony  Duane,  Vestryman  from  1732  to  1748. 

Peter  Jay,  "        from  1732  to  1746. 

Richard  Nicholls,       "       from  1732  to  1766. 

Ralph  Barker,  "        from  1733  to  1736. 

Daniel  Horsmanden,.]:  Vestryman  from  1734  to  1765.  War- 
den from  1765  to  1769,  and  Vestryman  again  from  1769  to 
1772. 

Henry  Roe,  Vestryman  from  1735  to  1748. 
Robert  Watts,  Vestryman  from  1739  to  1751. 
G-abriel  Ludlow,  "  from  1742  to  1769. 
Edward  Holland,  "  from  1745  to  1757. 
Abraham  Lodge,  "  from  1749  to  1759. 
Archibald  Fisher,  "  in  1746. 
Ebcnezer  Grant,  "  from  1746  to  1760. 
Charles  Williams,  "  from  1747  to  1774. 
Henry  Ludlow,  "  from  1748  to  1760. 
Thomas  Duncan,     "       from  1748  to  1759. 

*  AMerman  of  the  West  Ward  and  Member  of  Assembly  for  several  years, 
t  Assistant  Alderman  of  the  South  Ward. 

t  Recorder  of  the  city  from  1735  to  174.7.  One  of  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court  and  of  the  Colonv,  and  afterwards  Chief- Justice. 


64 


Robert  Cromeline,  Vestryman  from  1750  to  1784. 
Thomas  Moore,  "        from  1750  to  1762 

Benjamin  NicoU,  "        from  1751  to  1761. 

Greorge  Harison,  "        from  1752  to  1765. 

Edward  Mann,  "        from  1753  to  1770. 

John  Aspinwall,  "        from  1756  to  1760. 


David  Clarkson,  "        from  1757  to  1769.  Warden 


in  1770,  and  Vestryman  again  from  1771  to  1777. 
Andrew  Barclay,  Vestryman  from  1758  to  1777. 
John  Troup,  "        from  1758  to  1762. 


Elias  Desbrosses,*  "  from  1759  to  1770.  Warden 
from  1770  to  1778. 

Robert  Morrell,  Vestryman  from  1759  to  1761. 

Nicholas  William  Stuyvesant,  Vestryman  from  1760  to 


Theophylact  Bache.t  Vestryman  from  1760  to  1784,  in  1788 
and  from  1792  to  1800. 

Adrian  Renaudet,  Vestryman  from  1760  to  1779. 


Robert  R.  Livingston,t  Vestryman  from  1764  to  1775,  and 
Warden  from  1784  to  1785. 

*  Alderman  of  the  East  Ward  for  several  years,  and  gratefully  remembered  for 
his  legacies  towards  the  establishment  of  a  French  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  this  City,  and  towards  the  support  of  the  Charity  School. 

tFor  many  years  a  Governor  and  President  of  the  New- York  Hospital. 

t  Recorder  of  the  City ;  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Colony  ;  one  of 
the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  ;  Chancellor  of  the  State,  and 
Minister  to  Paris  under  the  Consulate  and  Empire. 


1773. 


John  Ludlow, 
Alexander  Golden, 
Joseph  Sackett, 
Thomas  Hill, 
Edward  Laight, 
Anthony  Van  Dam, 


in  1761. 


from  1761  to  1775. 
from  1761  to  1764. 
from  1762  to  1779. 
from  1762  to  1784. 
from  1762  to  1783. 


65 


John  Charlton,  Vestryman  from  1764  to  1784.  Warden 
from  1794  to  1806. 

Humphrey  Jones,  Vestryman  from  1764  to  1772. 

Matthew  Clarkson,        "       from  1765  to  1769. 

Benjamin  Kissam,         "       from  1766  to  1783. 

John  Tabor  Kempe,*  "  from  1769  to  1778.  Warden 
from  1779  to  1783. 

Miles  Sherbrooke,  Vestryman  from  1769  to  1784. 


Mr.  Smith, 


in  1770. 

from  1771  to  1782. 
from  1771  to  1784. 
from  1772  to  1777.  Warden 


John  Grriffith,  " 

Gabriel  H.  Ludlow,  " 

James  Duane,t  " 
from  1784  to  1794. 

Peter  Groelet,  Vestryman  from  1772  to  1782. 

arove  Bend,         "       from  1773  to  1778. 

Charles  Shaw,       "       from  1774  to  1784. 

Christopher  Smith,  Vestryman  from  1774  to  1781. 

James  Desbrosses,  "  from  1775  to  1779.  Warden 
from  1779  to  1784. 

Peter  Van  Schaick,*  LL.D.,  Vestryman  from  1776  to  1779 
and  in  1780. 

William  Laight,  Vestryman  from  1777  to  1784,  and  from 
1788  to  1802. 

David  Seabury,  Vestryman  from  1777  to  1784. 
F.  Phillippse,  "       from  1779  to  1782. 

Thomas  Moore,         "       from  1779  to  1784. 


♦  Attorney-General  of  the  Province. 

t  Member  of  the  old  Congress ;  first  Mayor  of  the  City  under  the  government 
of  the  State  of  New- York  ;  first  Judge  of  the  United  States  District  Court  upon 
the  organizationof  the  Judiciary  under  the  present  Constitution  of  the  United 
States ;  receiving  the  appointment  from  Washington. 

t  An  eminent  Lawyer  and  accomplished  scholar. 


66 


Robert  Watts,  Vestryman  from  1778  to,  1783.  Warden  in 
1783.    Warden  from  1790  to  1804. 

William  Ustick,  Vestryman  from  1778  to  1784.  • 
Augustus  Van  Cortlandt,  Vestryman  from  1779  to  1784. 


Richard  Harison,*  LL.D.,  Vestryman  in  1783,  from  1788 
to  1811,  and  Warden  from  1811  to  1827. 
Stephen  Skinner,  Vestryman  in  1783. 


*  Recorder  of  the  City  from  1797  to  1801 ;  a  distinguishcJ  Lawyer ;  a  fin 
classical  scholar,  and  District  Attorney  of  the  United  States,  appointed  by  Wash- 
ington. 

f  Eminent  in  the  civil  atTairs  of  the  State,  and  the  organization  of  the  State 
Government ;  preceded  John  Jay  as  Chief-Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
New- York,  1779,  which  office  he  held  until  his  retirement  from  public  life,  in 
1791. 

t  One  of  the  Signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  a  Member  of  the 
old  Congress.    He  lived  to  the  age  of  93. 

^  Sheriff  of  London — famous  for  his  eloquence  and  popular  talent — active  in 
promoting  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  his  name  frequently  occurring  in  the 
political  history  of  the  times,  and  a  wealthy  merchant. 

II  Member  of  the  Continental  Congress  from  1777  to  1778. 

IT  Member  of  the  Legislature  and  Senate  of  this  State,  and  Secretary  of  the 
same. 


John  Smith, 
Thomas  Ellison, 
Abraham  Walton, 
Cadwallader  Golden 


from  1781  to  1784. 
from  1781  to  1784. 
from  1782  to  1784. 
from  1782  to  1784. 


Richard  Morris,t  "  from  1784  to  1785. 

Francis  Lewis,*  "  from  1784  to  1786. 

Col.  Lewis  Morris,  "  from  1784  to  1785. 

Isaac  Sears,^  "  from  1784  to  1786. 

Wm.  Duer,ll  "  from  1784  to  1787. 

Wm.  Bedlow,  "  from  1784  to  1787. 
Daniel  Dunscomb,  Vestryman  from  1784  to  1789. 

Anthony  Lispenard,  "  from  1784  to  1787. 

Thomas  Tillotston,ir  "  in  1784. 


61 


Col.  John  Stevens,*  Vestryman  from  1784  to  1787. 

Marinus  Willet,t  "       from  1784  to  1785. 

Robert  Troup,!:  "  in  1784,  and  from  1812  to 
1817. 

Joshua  Sands,  ^  "       from  1784  to  1787. 

Anthony  Griffith,  "       from  1784  to  1787. 

Christopher  Mdler,  "       from  1784  to  1785. 

Thomas  Tucker,  "       in  1784. 

Hercules  Mulligan,  "       from  1784  to  1787. 

Thomas  Grinnell,  "       in  1784. 

WiUiam  Mercier,  "       from  1784  to  1788. 

John  Rutherford,  II  "       from  1784  to  1787. 

John  Lawrence,  H  "in  1784. 

James  Farquhar,  "       from  1784  to  1801 

John  Alsop,  "       from  1784  to  1788. 

John  Hunt,  "       in  1784. 

John  Jay,**  Warden  in  1785,  and  again  from  1788  to  1791. 


*  First  practical  projector  of  Steamboats. 

+  Colonel  in  the  Revolutionary  war — filled  many  honourable  civil  stations,  and 
finally  that  of  Mayor  of  the  city  in  1807  and  1808. 

t  Colonel  in  the  Revolutionary  army — repeatedly  in  the  Legislature — Judge  of 
the  District  Court,  and  an  eminent  lawyer. 

\j  Member  of  the  Legislature  and  Representative  in  Congress. 

II  Colonel  in  the  Revolutionary  army,  and  Senator  of  the  United  States  from 
New-Jersey. 

H  Judge  Advocate  in  the  army  of  the  Revolution — member  of  the  Continental 
Congress,  from  1785  to  1787,  and  represented  the  city  of  New- York  in  Congress, 
from  1789  to  1793. 

**  Delegate  to  the  old  Congress,  and  President  of  the  same — Secretary  for 
Foreign  Affairs  under  the  old  Confederation — Minister  Plenipotentiary  to  Spain 
during  the  Revolution — first  Chief  Justice  of  the  State — Commissioner  with 
Adams  and  Franklin  to  negotiate  a  peace  with  England — Special  Envoy  to  Great 
Britain  for  establishing  a  Commercial  treaty  in  1793 — Chief  Justice  of  the 
United  States  from  1789  to  1794,  and  Governor  of  the  State  of  New- York  from 
1795  to  1801. 


68 


Thomas  Randall,  *  Vestryman  from  1785  to  1791. 
Anthony  L.  Bleecker,  Vestryman   from  1785   to  1807. 
Warden  from  1807  to  1811. 
Paschal  N.  Smith,  Vestryman  in  1785. 
Robert  C.  Livingston,    "       from  1785  to  1795. 
James  Giles,  t  "       from  1786  to  1789. 

Morgan  Lewis,  t  "       in  1786. 

Andrew  Hamersley,  "  from  1787  to  1807. 
Hubert  Van  Wagenen,  "  from  1787  to  1806. 
Nicholas  Carmer,  "       from  1787  to  1808. 

John  Lewis,  "       from  1787  to  1795. 

Alexander  Ogsbury,  "  from  1787  to  1800. 
Moses  Rogers,  "       from  1787  to  1811. 

George  Dominick,  "  from  1787  to  1792. 
Nicholas  Kortright,  »  from  1787  to  1792. 
Wm.  Bush,  "       from  1787  to  1789. 

Matthew  M.  Clarkson,^  "       from  1788  to  1792. 
Samuel  Bard,  li  "       in  1788. 

Wm.  Samuel  Johnson,1[  "       from  1788  to  1801. 


*  Founder  of  the  Sailors'  Snug  Harbour. 

+  Major  in  the  Revolutionary  army — Commissary  General  of  the  State,  after- 
wards Major-Genaral. 

t  Major  in  the  Revolutionary  army,  afterwards  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court 
and  Chief  Justice  of  the  State — Governor  of  the  State  of  New- York,  and  for 
many  years,  and  until  his  death,  President  of  the  Cincinnati  Society. 

()  Colonel  in  the  Revolutionary  armj',  and  President  of  the  New- York  Hospi- 
tal, and  of  various  other  benevolent  institutions. 

II  An  eminent  Physician — a  Medical  and  Scientific  ,author — a  Professor  for 
many  years,  and  finally  President  in  the  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons  in 
New- York. 

IT  Member  of  Council,  and  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  Connecticut — Delegate 
to  the  Congress  of  the  old  Confederation — Senator  from  Connecticut  to  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States — Doctor  of  Laws  from  the  University  of  Oxford,  and 
President  of  Columbia  College.    He  was  also  a  member  of  the  Convention  for 


69 


John  Jones,  Vestryman  from  1788  to  1800. 

from  1788  to  1800. 
from  1789  to  1793. 
from  1789  to  1791. 
from  1790  to  1820. 
from  1791  to  1812.  Warden 


Charles  Startin, 
Greorge  Warner,  * 
Alexander  Hamersley, 
Thomas  Barrow, 
David  M.  Clarkson, 

from  1812  to  1815. 
Augustus  Van  Horne, 
Hugh  G-aine,t 
Peter  Stuyvesant, 
Jacob  Le  Roy, 
Francis  Dominick, 
John  Clark, 
Frederick  De  Peyster, 
Andrew  Smith, 
George  Stanton, 
Charles  McEvers,  Jr., 

from  1828  to  1839. 
Joshua  Jones, 
John  Onderdonkjt 
William  Bayard, 
John  McVickar, 
James  Clark, 
Rufris  King,  ^  Warden 


from  1792  to  1797. 
from  1792  to  1808. 
from  1793  to  1799. 
from  1795  to  1815. 
from  1795  to  1812. 
from  1797  to  1812. 
from  1800  to  1812. 
from  1800  to  1814. 
in  1800. 

from  1800  to  1828.  Warden 


from 


from  1801  to 
from  1801  to 
from  1801  to 
from  1801  to 
from  1802  to 
1805  to  1812. 


1821. 
1832. 
1821. 
1812. 
1806. 


forming  the  present  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  took  an  active  part 
in  the  earlier  councils  of  our  Church,  and  in  the  organization  of  the  General 
Convention. 

*  Member  of  the  Legislature  from  this  city. 

t  Printer  and  Bookseller  of  this  city,  respected  in  his  own  day,  and  remem- 
bered with  honour  in  this. 

t  President  of  the  Medical  Society. 

^  Member  of  the  old  Congress  and  of  the  Legislature  of  New- York — three 
times  elected  Senator  of  the  United  States — Minister  to  England  under  General 
Washington,  and  again  under  John  Quincy  Adams 


10 


Thomas  Farmer,  Vestryman  in  1806. 

Wynant  Van  Zandt,  jr.*  "       from  1806  to  1811. 

Thomas  L.  Ogden,t  "  from  1807  to  1839.  Warden 
from  1839  to  1844. 

Nehemiah  Rogers,  "  from  1807  to  1816.  Warden 
from  1816  to  1842. 

John  Lagear,  "       from  1808  to  1811. 

Garrit  H.  Van  Wagenen,  Vestryman  from  1808  to  1812. 

Andrew  Raymond,  "         from  1808  to  1818. 

Peter  A.  Jay,  LL.D.,*  "         from  1811  to  1816, 

and  again  from  1842  to  1844. 

William  Newton,  Vestryman  in  1811. 

Anthony  L.  Underhill,  "  from  1811  to  1825,  and  from 
1826  to  1847. 

Edward  W.  Laight,  "  from  1811  to  1812,  and  again 
from  1818  to  1845.  Warden  from  1845  to  1851.  Vestry- 
man to  1852. 

William  Hill,       Vestryman  from  1812  to  1818. 

Francis  B.  Winthrop,     "       from  1812  to  1818. 

Jacob  Sherred,^  "       from  1812  to  1821. 

Peter  Mackie,  "       from  1812  to  1823. 

Edward  Dunscomb,  II     "       from  1812  to  1814. 

Charles  Ludlow,  "       from  1812  to  1815. 

*  Alderman  for  many  years  of  the  First  Ward. 

t  An  eminent  Chamber  Counsellor,  a  prominent  member  of  many  of  our 
literary  and  ecclesiastical  institutions,  and  an  able  and  judicious  delegate  for  a 
long  course  of  years,  both  in  the  Local  and  General  Councils  of  the  Church. 

t  Recorder  of  the  City  for  several  years,  a  distinguished  Counsellor,  President 
of  the  New- York  Hospital,  and  filling,  with  credit,  many  other  honourable  and 
public  stations. 

()  A  noble  benefactor  of  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  to  which  he  be- 
queathed about  $60,000,  the  half  of  his  fortune. 

II  A  Revolutionary  officer,  Sheriff  of  this  City,  and  repeatedly  a  member  of  tho 
Legislature. 


71 


Thomas  Skinner,  Vestryman  from  1812  to  1816. 

James  Bleecker, 

(( 

from  1814  to  1842. 

William  Moore,* 

(( 

from  1814  to  1824. 

Teunis  Quick, 

li 

from  1815  to  1848. 

Henry  McFarlan, 

11 

from  1815  to  1831. 

Jonathan  Ogden, 

u 

from  1816  to  1833. 

Jonathan  H.  Lawrence,  t  " 

from  1817  to  1845. 

Thomas  Swords, 

li 

from  1817  to  1843. 

Cornelius  R.  Duffie,t 

a 

from  1817  to  1823. 

Edward  N.  Cox, 

i( 

from  1818  to  1822. 

Peter  A.  Mesier, 

(( 

from  1818  to  1847. 

Benjamin  W.  Rogers, 

i( 

from  1821  to  1826. 

Gabriel  Furman,  k 

(( 

from  1821  to  1836. 

William  Johnson,  LL.D.,II  " 

from  1821  to  1847. 

Ezra  Weeks, 

(( 

from  1822  to  1834. 

John  Watts,  IT 

(( 

from  1822  to  1830. 

Charles  N.  S.  Rowland, 

(( 

from  1823  to  1825. 

Robert  Thomas, 

from  1823  to  1832. 

Beverley  Robinson, 

a 

from  1824  to  1827. 

John  T.  Irving,** 

(I 

from  1825  to  1838. 

Charles  Graham, 

from  1825  to  1826,  and  from 

1832  to  1838. 


*  A  distinguished  Physician,  and  Professor  in  the  Medical  Faculty  of  Colum- 
bia College. 

t  A  Revolutionary  officer ;  in  after  life  a  man  of  business  and  an  accomplished 
merchjmt,  and  for  many  years  President  of  the  Pacific  Insurance  Company. 

t  Afterwards  founder  and  Rector  of  St.  Thomas's  Church. 

<)  Alderman  of  the  City,  member  of  the  Legislature,  and  President  for  many 
years  of  the  Mutual  Insurance  Company. 

II  For  many  years  Reporter  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  New- York. 

IT  President  of  the  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons. 

**  Member  of  tlie  Legislature  of  New- York,  for  many  years  First  Judge  of  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas  of  the  City  of  New- York,  and  a  conspicuous  member  of 
various  literary  and  benevolent  institutions 


72 


Jacob  Lorillard,*  Vestryman  from  1826  to  1839. 


Greorge  Jones,  " 

Philip  Hone,t  " 

William  E.  Dunscomb,  " 

to  1855. 

Benjamin  M.  Brown,  " 

William  H.  Harison,  " 

to  1855. 

Adam  TredwcU,  " 

from  1843  to  1852. 

Robert  Hyslop,  .  " 

Henry  Cotheal,  " 

John  D.  Wolfe,  " 

Thomas  W.  Ludlow,  " 

Thomas  L.  Clark,  " 

William  Moore,  " 
William  H.  Hobart, 

Henry  Youngs,  " 
Alexander  L.  McDonald,  " 

Samuel  G.  Raymond,!  " 

John  Q,.  Jones,  " 

Gulian  C.  Verplanck,  " 

Philip  Henry,  " 

John  I.  Morgan,  k  " 

David  B.  Ogden,ll  " 

Anthony  J.  Bleecker,  " 


from  1827  to  1837. 
from  1828  to  1851 
from  1830  to  1851.  Warden 

from  1831  to  1839. 

from  1833  to  1852.  Warden 

from  1833  to  1843.  Warden 

from  1834  to  1855. 
from  1837  to  1849 
from  1837  to  1845. 
in  1838. 

from  1838  to  1853. 
from  1889  to  1855. 
from  1839  to  1855. 
from  1839  to  1855. 
from  1839  to  1855. 
from  1843  to  1850. 
in  1843. 

from  1844  to  1855. 
from  1844  to  1855. 
from  1845  to  1849. 
from  1845  to  1849. 
from  1846  to  1855. 


*  President  of  the  German  Society,  the  Mechanics'  Society,  and  the  Mechanics' 
Bank. 

t  Mayor  of  New- York.  >  -. 

t  Member  of  the  Legislature. 

<)  Member  of  Congress,  and  Collector  of  the  port. 

II  Member  of  the  Legislature,  Surrogate  of  the  City  of  New- York ;  a  distin- 
guished Counsellor,  and  an  able  and  powerful  advocate  in  the  Courts  of  this  State, 
and  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 


73 


John  R.  Livingston,  Vestryman  from  1847  to  1855. 
Greorge  Templcton  Strong,  Vestryman,  from  1847  to  1855 
Samuel  T.  Skidmore,  Vestryman  from  1848  to  1855. 
William  H.  Falls,         "       from  1849  to  1855. 
Samuel  Jones,*  "       from  1849  to  1853. 

John  A.  Dix,  "       from  1849  to  18^5. 

Richard  H.  Ogden,  "  from  1850  to  1855. 
(^yrus  Curtiss,  "       from  1850  to  1855. 

G-eorge  P.  Cammann,  "  from  1851  to  1855. 
Abel  T.  Anderson,  "  from  1852  to  1855. 
Frederick  Pentz,  "       from  1852  to  1855. 

G-overneur  M.  Ogden,  "  from  1853  to  1855. 
James  J.  Jones,  "       from  1853  to  1855. 

Who  that  is  at  all  familiar  with  our  local  history,  and  feels 
any  interest  in  it,  can  look  back  upon  the  names  of  these 
respected  and  venerated  men,  without  a  feeling  of  reverence 
for  that  ancient  Corporation,  whose  concerns  they  have  man- 
aged with  so  much  prudence,  whose  wealth  they  have  dis- 
pensed with  so  much  liberality,  and  whose  rights  and  privi- 
leges they  have  at  all  times  so  conscientiously  and  manful- 
ly defended  ?  Wlio  that  now  belongs  to  this  Parish,  or  who 
that  was  ever  connected  with  it,  can  help  feeling  some  hon- 
est pride  in  being  a  member  of  a  body  which  associates  him 
with  those  who  in  past  generations  adorned  the  age  in  which 
they  lived,  and  with  those  who  in  the  present  day  are  held 
in  honour  and  respect? 

♦  Chancellor  of  the  State,  and  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court. 


74 

But  though  there  were  at  all  times  among  the  "Wardens  and 
Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  many  who  were  eminent  in  the 
learned  professions,  distinguished  as  scholars,  and  exalted  in 
rank  and  station  ;  yet  the  selection  was  by  no  means  confined 
to  them,  but  extended  to  persons  in  all  the  various  classes  and 
callings  in  life.  There  was,  however,  on  every  occasion,  an 
uniform  reference  to  the  fitness,  intelligence,  and  probity  of 
those  who  were  chosen  for  the  discharge  of  these  high  and  re- 
sponsible duties ;  and  I  doubt  whether  there  ever  was  a  Cor- 
poration in  this  or  any  other  country,  who,  during  the  long 
course  of  one  hunded  and  fifty  years,  administered  their  affairs 
with  stricter  integrity,  or  who,  in  their  personal  characters, 
were  more  free  from  reproach. 


EEPORTS 

OF  THE 

SELECT  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  SENATE 

ON  THE 

AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH, 

WITH  THE 

TESTIMONY  RElATllfE  THERETO. 


ALBANY: 
VAN  BENTHUYSEUr,  PRINTER,  407  EROADWAY. 

1857. 


FIRST  REPORT 


Mr.  Spencer,  from  the  select  committee  to  wliich  was  referred 
the  report  of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  church,  in  the  city  of  New- 
York,  in  reply  to  the  resolutions  of  the  Senate,  passed  April  13, 
1855,  and  who  were  subsequently  authorized  "  to  examine  into 
the  matters  connected  therewith,  during  tlie  recess,"  submitted 
the  following 

REPORT: 

That  they  met  in  the  city  of  New-York,  on  Tuesday,  the  2d  of 
December,  and  sat  during  that  day  and  the  3d,  4th  and  19th  and 
20th  days  of  the  same  mouth. 

Three  days  before,  notice  thereof  (marked  C  in  the  appendix 
to  the  evidence)  was  given  in  writing  to  tlie  Vestry  of  Trinity 
church,  informing  them  of  the  time  and  place  of  meeting,  and 
offering  them  the  opportunity  of  presenting  then,  or  at  any  time 
during  the  session  of  the  committee,  any  statement  or  explana- 
tion in  regard  to  any  of  the  matters  referred  to  it,  which  they 
might  desire  to  present.  On  the  first  day  a  communication 
(marked  D)  was  received  from  the  comptroller  of  Trinity  church, 
acknowledging  the  receipt  of  the  notice,  and  adding  that  if  your 
committee  would  communicate  to  him,  for  the  vestry,  what 


4 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COJIMITTEE 


statement  or  explanation  was  wanted  in  regard  to  any  of  the 
matters  contained  in  the  report,  he  would  feel  it  his  duty  to  sub- 
mit the  same,  and  doubted  not  that  the  vestry  would  cheerfully 
and  promptly  furnish-  the  requisite  statement  or  explanation. 
Your  committee  thereupon  immediately  addressed  another  note 
to  the  vestry  (marked  E,)  desiring  tlie  names  of  the  corporators 
entitled  to  vote  and  voting,  as  required  under  the  first  resolu 
tion  of  inquiry;  also  whether  there  were  any  additional  mort- 
gages or  securities  beside  those  set  forth  in  their  last  report  to 
the  Senate,  and  if  so,  the  full  particulars  concerning  them;  and 
also,  the  real  value  of  each  lot  or  parcel  of  land  owned  by  the 
corporation,  irrespective  of  the  leases  thereon. 

A  reply  to  this  note  not  haring  been  recived  on  the  4th  of 
December,  a  subpcena  was  served  upon  the  comptroller,  who 
appeared  before  your  committee  and  testified;  and  a  copy  of  his 
testimony,  as  given  in  the  subjoined  evidenccj  was  made  out  and 
sent  to  him  at  his  request. 

On  the  19th  of  December  a  reply  (marked  J)  was  received  from 
the  corporation,  which  not  only  touches  upon  the  matters  re- 
quested, but  also  furnishes  additional  information  bearing  upon 
new  and  unexpected  points,  opened  during  the  examination  of 
the  comptroller.  This  communication  is  stated  by  the  corpora- 
tion to  be  supplemental  to  their  report^  presented  to  the  Senate 
on  the  20th  of  February,  1856,  and  it  will  therefore  be  referred 
to  throughout  this  report,  as  the  sappUmeyit. 

Your  committee  have  had  before  them  between  thirty  and  forty 
witnesses,  all  of  the  highest  respectability  and  most  reliable 
character.  Except  those  testifying  merely  to  the  value  and  prices 
of  property,  all  these  witnesses  are  members  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  and  known  for  their  high  standing  in  that 
communion.  Eleven  are  clergymen,  and  three  of  them  assistant 
ministers  of  Trinity  Church.  Four  of  the  vestry  (including  one 
formerly  a  vestryman)  appeared  before  us,  only  one  of  whom 
declined  to  be  sworn.  This  declining  was  the  more  regretted, 
because  that  vestryman,  being  a  member  of  the  standing  com- 
mittee— whicb  appears,  from  the  evidence,  to  possess  nearly  all 
the  reliable  knowledge  of  the  affairs  of  the  corporation — it  was 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


5 


hoped  that  his  testimony  would  furnish  explanations  of  no  small 
importance  to  the  vestry. 

In  condensing  the  large  mass  of  information  laid  before  them, 
your  committee  w  ill  first  consider  the  five  original  resolutions  of 
inquiry,  separately  ;  passing  on  thence  to  the  additional  matter 
introduced  into  their  report  by  the  vestry,  beyond  the  limited 
inforniation  requested,  and  including  also,  by  order  of  the  Sen- 
ate, the  still  more  voluminous  "  matters  connected  therewith," 
the  consideration  of  which  has  thus  been  necessarily  involved 
by  the  "  more  complete,"  "  expedient "  and  "  satisfactory  "  ex- 
pansion given,  of  their  own  accord,  by  the  vestry,  to  their  report. 

First  Resolution, 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of 
New-York  be  and  tliey  are  hereby  required  to  report  to  the  Sen- 
ate of  this  State,  on  or  before  the  seventh  day  of  January  next, 
the  number  and  the  names  of  the  persons  entitled,  under  an  act 
to  alter  the  name  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  New- 
York,  and  for  other  purposes,  passed  January  25th,  1814,  to  vote 
at  the  annual  elections  for  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  the 
present  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  specifying  those  who  vote 
as  communicants,  and  those  who  vote  as  pew-holders  in  the  said 
church,  and  the  names  of  the  persons  so  entitled,  who  did  actu- 
ally vote  at  each  of  the  three  last  annual  elections  held  for  the 
choice  of  church- wardens  and  vestrymen  of  said  corporation." 

In  their  report  to  the  Senate,  the  corporation  gave  the  number 
of  the  persons  thus  entitled  to  vote,  as  305,  of  whom  92  are 
communicants,  and  213  are  pew-holders.  It  also  gave  the  num- 
ber of  corporators  voting  at  the  annual  election,  not  only  for  the 
three  years  requested,  but  for  ten  years  past.  But  the  report 
gave  no  names. 

The  supplement  states  that  the  corporation  then  "  designedly 
refrained  from  giving  the  names,"  supposing  "  that  the  names  of 
such  persons  could  not  be  material,  because  the  vestry  were  not 
aware  that  the  liberty  to  inspect  a  list  of  such  names  had  ever 
been  refused  to  any  corporator,"  and  "because  the  vestry  believed 
that  the  Honorable  Senate,  upon  receiving  the  re^or/,  would  not. 


6 


REPOBT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


at  least  without  evidence  of  such  refusal,  exert  its  authority  for 
the  enforcement  of  a  mere  private  right." 

The  evidence  shows  that  two  of  the  assistant  ministers  of  the 
parish  "  have  made  several  effurts  to  obtain  such  a  list  unsuccess- 
fully that  the  list  is  kej^t  "  in  the  joint  charge  of  the  comptrol- 
ler and  rector  ;"  that  one  who  has  been  a  vestryman  for  six  years 
has  seen  only  "one  list  of  the  corporators,  which  was  kept  by  Dr. 
Berrian  at  an  election;"  that  another,  who  had  been  a  vestryman 
for  ten  years,  had  "never  seen  a  list  of  the  corporators;"  and,  he 
added,  that  "the  vestrymen  were  not  allowed  to  see  it,  that  he 
knew  of;"  and  also  that  the  comptroller  himself,  as  appears  in  his 
evidence,  though  "presuming"  that  the  names  were  in  his  ofQce, 
promised  to  furnish  a  copy  of  them  to  your  committee,  only  in 
case  he  was  authorized  to  do  so  by  "the  committee  of  the  vestry." 

The  vestry,  however,  not  considering  their  objections  to  giving 
the  names  as  "  of  sufficient  importance  to  induce  them  to  with- 
hold making  answer,"  they  supply  the  omitted  lists  of  names, 
Avhich  will  be  found  in  Schedule  A,  appended  to  the  supfhment. 
"These  lists,"  the  vestry  add,  "are  believed  to  be  accurate  "  They 
state  in  the  report  that  those  who  have  removed  too  far  from  the 
parish  church  and  chapels  to  continue  to  worship  therein,  are  "of 
course,  not  enumerated  among  the  corporators,  because  they  aie 
not  entitled  to  vote."  It  must,  therefore,  be  an  oversight,  that 
among  the  names  contained  in  these  lists  "believed  to  be  accu- 
rate," there  are  those  of  persons  who  have  removed  from  the 
city,  and  also  of  others  who  have  long  been  dead — some  of  them 
for  years. 

In  regard  to  the  fewness  of  the  corporators  entitled  to  vote  for 
the  managers  of  this  large  property,  the  vestry,  in  their  report,  set 
forth  the  probability  of  an  increase,  from  the  late  increase  of  paro- 
chial work.  They  added  :  "A  like  increase  may  also  be  expected 
from  the  persons  worshiping  in  the  new  Trinity  Chapel,  lately 
erected,  who  for  the  space  of  one  year  shall  have  been  members 
of  the  congregation  of  that  chapel.  This  new  chapel  was  prin- 
cipally built  for  the  accommodation  of  the  parishioners  and  their 
families  who  had  been  a  long  time  in  the  parish,  but  had  removed 
too  far  from  ihe  parish  church  and  chapels  to  continue  to  worship 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TEI^■ITY  CHURCH. 


7 


therein  ;  and  tlius,  by  inducing  their  return,  to  increase  the  num- 
ber of  our  constituency."  Although  thus  representing  that  this 
new  chajjel  was  principally  built  with  a  view  to  increase  the 
number  of  corporators,  it  appears  from  the  printed  form  of  lease 
given  for  pews  the  first  year,  that  the  said  leases  ran  "  for  the 
term  commencing  on  the  firsr  Sunday  after  Easter,  and  continuing 
to  and  including  Easter-day  in  the  next  year,  and  no  longer."' 
Thus,  though  a  man  might  be  a  pew-holder  all  the  Sundays  in 
the  year,  he  would  not  be  a  pew-holder  (and  consequently  not  a 
corporator)  on  the  day,  (Easter  Tuesday,)  when  the  annual  elec- 
tion was  held,  since  his  lease  expired  just  two  days  previous, 
and  would  not  recommence  until  four  days  after.  And  to  make 
this  still  more  evident,  each  lease  expressly  stated  in  the  printed 
"  schedule,"  which  forms  part  of  the  document,  that  "  The  above 
agreement,  or  the  occupation  of  a  seat,  does  not  give  to  any  person 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  a  corporator."  Nor  was  this  meant  to 
apply  only  until  such  persons  had  "  for  the  space  of  one  year 
been  members  of  the  congregation  of  that  chapel,"  as  would  seem 
to  be  stated  in  the  report ;  for,  on  the  back  of  that  same  form 
of  lease  there  are  printed  blank  receipts  for  the  pew-rent  for  the 
three  subsequent  years  also,  each  embodying  the  same  phraseol- 
ogy ;  thus  showing  that  the  exclusion  from  the  rights  and  pri- 
vileges of  a  corporator  was  intended  to  continue  for  four  years 
at  the  least.  It  appears  also,  from  the  evidence  of  a  vestryman, 
that  this  was  so  done  in  order  "  to  preclude  the  creation  of  a 
corporator  ;"  and,  as  another  witness  testifies,  this  original  ar- 
rangement was  '•  an  ordinance  of  the  vestry,  interfering  in  some 
respects  with  the  privilege  of  voting  ;"  which  was  subsequently 
rescinded.  This  rescinding  is  stated  to  have  taken  place  in  the 
April  after  the  report  of  the  vestry  was  presented  to  the  Senate. 

It  appears,  too,  that  at  one  time,  notwithstanding  objection 
made  on  the  ground  that  it  was  an  "  obstacle  to  voting,"  which 
was  "  contrary  to  the  law,"  the  vestry  required  that  all  corpora- 
tors desiring  to  vote  "  should  give  previous  written  notice  of  such 
desire  to  the  rector." 

Second  Rtsolution. 

Resolved,  That  the  said  vestry  be  and  they  are  hereby  directed 
to  report  to  the  Senate  of  this  State,  on  or  before  the  seventh  day 


8 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


of  January  next,  the  amount  of  money  expended  by  said  corpo- 
ration in  building  or  in  aiding  and  assisting  to  build  free  churches 
in  the  destitute  portions  of  the  parish  of  Trinity  Church,  as  ori- 
ginally constituted  and  declared,  and  the  names  of  such  churches, 
with  the  amount  expended  upon  each;  also  the  number  and 
names  of  the  churches  in  tlie  city  of  New-York,  built,  in  whole 
or  in  part,  by  the  said  corporation  witliin  the  last  five  years,  and 
the  amount  expended  on  each;  the  number  and  names  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  churches,  situated  in  the  city  of  New- York, 
in  leeble  and  necessitous  circumstances,  which  have  been  aided 
and  assisted  by  the  said  corporation  within  the  last  five  years, 
and  the  amount  of  such  aid  and  assistance,  afforded  annually 
or  otherwise,  to  each ;  also  the  number  and  names  of  the  churches 
in  the  city  of  New- York,  endowed  by  the  said  corporation 
within  the  last  five  years,  and  the  amount  of  such  endowment 
in  each  case. 

As  to  free  churches,  it  does  not  appear  from  her  report  that 
Trinity  has  ever  built  any.  The  report  mentions  grants  ot 
money  and  land,  before  the  year  1814,  to  St.  Michael's  and  St. 
James'  Churches.  Of  the  grants  since  that  time  there  appear 
only  $14,000  to  aid  in  building  and  rebuilding  the  Church  of 
the  Nativity,  and  $1,600  towards  building  or  enlarging  free 
churches;  of  all  which  $1,100  has  been  paid  within  the  last  five 
years. 

In  the  report,  by  going  back  beyond  the  five  years  to  the  year 
1847,  the  amount  of  $63,850.79  is  set  down  as  having  been  paid 
at  different  times  for  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Evangelist  (now 
occupying  the  old  St.  George's,  Beekman-street.)  Of  this  sum 
$25,000  appears  to  have  been,  not  a  payment  of  any  kind,  but 
only  a  vote  of  the  vestry  empowerina;  St.  George's,  Stuyvesant 
square,  to  sell  the  lots  formerly  given  by  Trinity  corporation, 
which  vote  of  the  vestry  is  estimated,  by  Trinity,  to  be  worth 
$25,000  to  St.  George's,  Stuyvesant  square,  and  is  therefore  set 
down  as  so  much  paid  for  St.  George's,  Beekman  street. 

As  to  "  the  churches  in  the  city  of  New- York,  built  in  whole  or 
part "  by  Trinity  corporation,  "  within  the  last  five  years,  and  the 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


9 


amount  expended  in  each,"  it  does  not  appear  from  her  report 
that  there  is  any  such  church,  except  the  new  Trinity  chapel, 
built  for  Trinity  parish  itself,  at  the  cost  of  |227,1 64.82. 

Of  Protestant  Episcopal  churches,  not  free,  situated  in  the  city 
of  New- York,  in  feeble  and  necessitous  circumstances,  which  have 
been  aided  and  assisted  by  the  said  corporation  within  the  last 
five  years,  the  report  gives  a  list  of  nineteen.  All  the  sums  thus 
given  are  stated  to  be  ''for  the  support"  of  the  said  churches,  no 
mention  being  made  of  building,  enlarging  or  endowing;  and  the 
total  of  all  for  the  five  years  last  past  is  $58,418,  of  which  nearly 
one  half  (26,800)  was  given  to  the  church  of  the  Annunciation 
alone. 

Of  "  churches  in  the  city  of  New-York  endowed  by  the  said 
corporation  within  the  last  five  years,"  it  does  not  appear  from 
the  report,  or  otherwise,  that  there  is  one. 

Third  Resolution. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  said  vestry  be  and  are  hereby  required  to 
report  to  the  Senate  of  this  State,  on  or  before  tlie  seventh  day  of 
January  next,  whether  any,  and  if  any,  what  appropriations  have 
been  made  by  them  during  the  last  three  years  to  institutions  of 
charity,  benevolence  or  learning  in  the  city  of  New-York." 

The  report  shows  the  gift  of  five  plots  in  Trinity  cemetry,  one 
to  Christ  Church,  and  one  each  to  the  Orphan  Asylum,  the  Society 
for  the  Relief  of  Aged  and  Indigent  Females,  the  Mutual  Eenefit 
Society  and  the  Orphans'  Home,  The  report  adds  that  "no  oth- 
er appropriations"  besides  these  have  been  made  during  the  last 
three  years  to  "institutions  of  charity,  benevolence  and  learning, 
in  the  city  of  New-York." 

It  appears  in  the  evidence  that  Trinity  Church  has  never,  at 
any  time,  established  or  endowed  any  institution  of  charity  or 
benevolence,  even  for  her  own  poor. 

Fourth  li  t^olution . 

"  Resolved,  That  the  said  vestry  be  and  they  are  hereby 
directed  to  report  to  the  Senate  of  this  State,  within  the  first 


10 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


week  of  January  next,  the  estimated  value  of  each  lot  and  par- 
cel of  land  owned  by  tlie  said  corporation  in  the  city  of  New- 
York,  irrespective  of  the  leases  tliereon." 

This  resolution  asks  for  the  estimated  value,  irrespective  of 
the  leases  The  report,  however,  is  based  wholly  on  the  value 
assessed  for  taxation,  which  is  notoriously  less  than  the  market 
value.  From  that  assessed  value,  the  vestry  abstracted  the 
value  of  the  buildings  as  "  estimated"  by  their  own  agents  sent 
round  for  that  purpose  (these  buildings  being  the  property  of 
the  tenants).  The  residue  was  then  still  further  reduced  by 
making  deductions  for  the  length  of  time  the  existing  leases 
have  to  run  ;  and  the  result  is  set  down  as  the  "  present  net 
value"  to  the  church.  The  total  "  present  value"  of  all  the 
real  estate  is  thus  reckoned  in  the  report  to  be  $1,446,371.71. 

In  their  note  to  the  vestry,  your  committee  requested  a  state- 
ment of  the  real  value  of  each  lot  or  parcel  of  land,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  evident  intention  of  the  resolution.  To  this  the 
vestry,  through  their  comptroller,  reply  in  the  supplement  that 
"  they  are  unable  to  give  any  further  answer  on  this  point  than 
th  ;t  contained  in  their  report."  "  Statements  upon  such  ques- 
tions" they  consider  to  be  "  mere  matters  ol  opinion."  They 
say  they  "  are  unable  to  agree  upon  any  estimate  of  their  own ;  nor 
do  they  think  it  right  that  they  should  discredit  an  official  valua- 
tion of  their  real  estate,  upon  the  basis  of  which  the  tenants  are 
bound  to  pay  the  taxes  and  assessments."  Thus  failing  to  procure 
from  the  vestry  anything  resting  on  a  more  reliable  basis  than  the 
assessed  values,  your  committee  received  such  evidence  as  they 
could  obtain  concerning  the  prices  paid  to  Trinity  Church  on 
new  valuations  for  fresh  leases,  or  on  actual  sales,  of  lots  which 
are  valued  in  the  report, — such  valuations  and  sales  being  at  or 
near  the  time  when  that  report  was  laid  before  the  Senate. 

The  "  present  value"  of  No.  251  Broadway  is  estimated  in  the 
report  to  be  $12,081 .56.  Mr.  Jasper  Grosvenor,  the  holder  of  the 
lease,  testifies  that  he  offered  them  |40,flOO  for  the  reversion  of 
that  lot  (the  lease  having  sixteen  years  to  run),  which  they  refused. 
He  paid  them  $10,000  for  a  stipulation  to  renew  the  lease,  at  its 


ox  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


11 


expiration,  for  another  term  uf  twenty-one  years,  upon  the  iisual 
terms. 

The  "present value"  of  No.  136,  138,  140  and  142,  Chambers- 
street  is  estimated  in  the  report  at  $28,827.40.  In  December, 
about  two  months  before  the  d;»te  of  the  report^  the  corporation 
itself,  in  a  ne^iotiation  with  the  Hudson  Kiver  Railroad  Company, 
is  proved  to  have  fixed  upon  these  same  lots  the  valuation  of 
$100,000 — the  ground  rent  upon  which  sum  the  Hudson  River 
Railroad  Company  agi-eed  to  pay. 

The  "  present  value  "  of  No.  275  Greenwich-street,  is  estimated 
in  the  report  at  $6,840.40.  At  actual  sale,  Trinity  corporation  is 
proved  to  have  received  for  it  from  James  H.  Noe,  a  few  days 
before  the  date  of  the  report,  the  sum  of  §20,000. 

The  "  present  value  "  of  Nos.  283  and  285  Hudson-street,  is 
estimated  in  the  report  at  $1,964.44.  Actual  sale  to  Joseph 
Tucker,  as  he  testifies,  about  two  months  after  the  roport  was 
presented,  realized  to  the  church  $20,000.  It  is  shown  that  there 
■was  no  change  of  any  consequence  iu  the  value  of  that  property 
during  the  six  months  previous. 

The  jH-esent  value  of  No.  525  Greenwich-street,  is  estimated  in 
the  report  at  $1,375.10.  Actual  sale  to  Matthias  Clark,  about  a 
week  after  the  report  was  read,  it  proved  to  have  brought  the 
church  $6,000.  It  is  testified  that  there  was  no  variation  in 
value  of  any  consequence  during  the  six  months  previous. 

The  aggregate  net  value  of  the  following  nine  lots,  Nos.  205 
and  207  Fulton  street,  36  and  48  Vesey  street,  13  and  15  Barclay 
street,  83  Murray  street,  and  18  and  44  Warren  street,  is  given 
in  the  report  as  $105,875.  It  appears  in  the  evidence  that,  pre- 
vious to  the  date  of  the  report,  these  same  nine  lots  had  been 
leased  by  the  corporation  on  an  aggregate  valuation  of  $209,000. 

Besides  these  cases  of  actual  sale  or  leasing  on  new  valuation^ 
by  Trinity  corporation  itself,  estimates  of  the  whole  landed  estate 
of  the  corporation  have  been  laid  before  your  committee,  made 
under  oath  by  four  men  represented  to  be  of  eminent  ability  and 
long  experience.    The  two  highest  for  the  whole  estate  are  by 


12 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Abner  L.  Ely  and  John  M.  Dodd,  and  though  independently 
made,  yet  almost  exactly  coincide  in  the  aggregate.  Mr.  Ely  is 
the  agent  for  the  Langdon  branch  of  the  Astor  family,  and  is 
employed  or  consulted  by  insurance  oflBces  to  make  valuations 
for  loans  an  real  estate,  as  indeed  are  also  the  other  three.  Mr. 
Ely's  valuation  for  the  whole  is  |6,103,500,  Mr.  Dodd's  $6,087,- 
050~a  difference  of  only  |16,450;  Mr.  Ritch's  is  $5,431,520; 
the  extreme  difference  between  the  estimates  of  these  appraisers 
being  only  $671,980  in  the  aggregate.  Messrs.  Ely,  Dodd  and 
Ritch,  on  inquiry,  all  testify  their  willingness  to  purchase  at 
their  valuations.  These  valuations,  moreover,  are  made  for  the 
ground  alone,  so  that  no  deduction  is  required  on  account  of 
buildings  which  are  the  property  of  tenants.  The  estimate  of 
Mr.  Aldrich  is  only  partial,  being  for  the  down  town  lots  alone, 
and  differing  but  little  from  that  of  Mr.  Ely.  It  is  not  here 
taken  into  the  account. 

Two  very  considerable  items  of  property  are  to  be  added  to 
those  stated  in  the  report.  The  first  is,  the  bonds  and  mortgages 
which  Trinity  corporation  has  required  from  churches  to  which 
she  has  made  appropriations,  which  bonds  are  drawn  bearing 
interest  from  the  date  of  the  grant.  These  mortgages  now 
amount  to  $319,525.15,  principal;  and  the  interest,  compvited  up 
to  January  Ist,  1857,  would  amount  to  $252,427.71  additional; 
or  $571,952.89  in  all.  These  mortgages  were  omitted  from 
the  report^  say  the  vestry,  because  they  were  not  productive  of 
income.  "  They  are  in  reality  only  held,"  says  the  suppliment,  "  to 
secure  to  the  permanent  use  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
of  the  United  States,  the  church  buildings  and  property  upon 
the  security  of  whicli,  this  body  has  loaned  money  to  other 
church  corporations,  for  their  aid  and  support.  The  vestry  be- 
lieve that  no  measures  have  been  taken  to  foreclose  any  of  such 
mortgages,  or  to  collect  interest  upon  them;"  and  the  comp- 
troller, Mr.  Dunscomb,  in  his  testimony,  says  :  "  Like  other 
mortgages,  there  is  a  power  to  foreclose  them,  but  we  never  take 
measures  to  collect  them, — never  have  exercised  the  power." 
And  yet  the  corporation  has  not  only  the  legal  power  to  compel 
payment,  but  tl)at  power  appears  to  have  been  exercised  more 
than  once.    From  the  report  itself  it  appears  that  these  mort- 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRIMTY  CHURCH. 


13 


gages  do  not  suffice  to  "secure  to  the  permanent  use  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church"  the  buildings  and  poperty  thus  mort- 
gaged; for  the  Vandewater  street  Church  was  sold,  and  Trinity 
corporation  appropriated  the  proceeds  in  partial  repayment  of  her 
advances.  From  a  report  of  the  corporation  to  the  House  of  As- 
sembly, in  1854,  it  appears  also  that  premises  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  City  Mission  Society,  thus  mortgaged,  were  afterwards 
sold,  and  Trinity  repaid  herself  to  the  amount  of  §8,720.51,  prin- 
cipal, and  81,420  interest.  Also  in  the  testimony  it  will  be  seen 
that,  in  regard  to  St.  Peter's  Church,  New-York,  the  corporation 
■was  tenacious  of  its  legal  rights  both  as  to  principal  and  interest, 
and  refused  to  waive  them,  even  for  the  benefit  of  a  deeply  em- 
barrassed parish.  Your  committee  do  not  find,  from  the  sche- 
dule B  of  these  mortgages  (attached  to  the  supplement,)  that  the 
interest  accruing  on  these  bonds  has  ever  been  remitted  on  re- 
newing the  mortgage,  except  in  one  instance.  In  some  cases  the 
interest  now  amounts  to  more  than  the  principal.  As  these 
mortgages  are  therefore  fully  legal  and  valid,  and  may  at  any 
time  be  foreclosed,  and  are  likely  to  be  satisfied  out  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  every  such  church  in  case  of  a  sale,  it  seems  but  right 
to  your  committee  that  they  should  not  be  altogether  omitted  in 
a  statement  of  the  property  of  the  corporation. 

Another  item,  never  heretofore  inserted  in  any  report  made  by 
Trinity  Church,  is  her  interest  in  St.  John's-square.  This  is 
stated  in  the  supplement  to  have  been  "an  inadvertent  omission." 
At  the  time  of  making  the  report,  "it  was  not  remembered  that 
the  corporation  retained  any  beneficial  property  in  the  square 
which  might,  under  certain  contingencies,  prove  of  large  value." 
Circumstances  during  the  past  season  having,  however,  brought 
this  beneficial  property  to  the  remembrance  of  the  vestry,  that 
body,  after  much  discussion,  fixed  upon  the  sum  of  $400,000  as 
that  for  which  they  would  sell  the  interest  in  St.  John's-square. 
That  amount  ought,  therefore,  to  be  added  to  the  total  of  the 
property  cf  the  corporation. 

It  appears  from  the  supplement  that  of  the  $199,469.41  of 
productive  mortgages,  mentioned  in  the  report,  $31,300  have  been 
paid  in,  and  $59,000  of  new  productive  mortgages  have  been 


14 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


added  since  the  report  was  made.  The  present  amount  of  this 
item  is  therefore  $227,169.41. 

The  report,  after  stating  the  net  value  of  the  laud  in  1855 
makes  a  further  reduction  by  reason  of  the  yet  unexpired  leases. 
The  total  amount  of  reductions  on  this  account  is  $1,222,338.29. 
Supposing  the  same  amount  of  deduction  to  be  made  from  the 
estimates  laid  before  your  committee,  and  that  the  amount  of  the 
debt  and  the  cash  in  bank  remained  unchanged,  the  true  sum- 
mary of  theproperty  of  tlie  corporation  will  then  appear,compared 
with  that  in  the  report  as  follows  : 

IN  THE  REPORT.  , 

Real  estate,   $1,416,371  71 

Bonds  and  mortgages,   199,469  41 

Cash  in  bank  at  the  end  of  the  last  financial  year,        19,399  46 

$1,665,240  58 

Deducting  the  debt,   648,913  00 

Shows  the  whole  net  value  to  be,   $1,016,327  58 


AS  PROVED  TO  YOUR  COMMITTEE. 

Real  estate  (average  of  the  estimates  of  Messrs.  Ely,  Dodd  and 
Ritch,  omitting  altogether  that  of  Mr.  Aldrich,)  $5,874,023  00 

Productive  bonds  and  mortgages,   227,169  41 

Church  bonds  and  mortgages,  witli  interest  to 

January  1st,  1857,    571,952  89 

St.  John's-square,   400,000  00 

Cash  in  bank,   19,399  46 

$7,092,514  76 

Deduct  on  account  of  leases  yet  to  run  (as  estima- 
ted in  the  rc/jo/-/;  itself,)   $1,222,338  29 

Debt,   648,913  00 

  1,871,251  29 

Net  total  present  value,   $5,221,293  47 

More  than  five  times  the  net  total  given  in  the  report. 


ON  AFFAIRS   OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


15 


Or,  if  the  church  bonds  and  the  beneficial  interest  in  St.  John's- 
square  be  deducted,  as  depending  on  uncertain  or  improbable 
cor,tingencies  for  their  actual  realization,  the  net  total  of  the 
present  ■productive  estate  of  Trinity  corporation  -will  still  be  $4, 
249,340.58,  which  is  more  than  four  times  the  net  total  given  in 
the  report. 

Fifth  Resolution. 
"  Resolved,  also.  That  said  vestry  report  to  the  Senate  of  this 
State,  in  the  first  week  of  January  next,  a  statement  of  the  num- 
ber of  lots  belonging  to  said  corporation,  the  leases  of  which 
have  expired  within  the  five  years  ending  on  the  first  of  Novem 
ber,  1855,  and  whether  said  lots  have  been  relet  or  have  been 
sold." 

It  appears  from  the  report  that,  during  the  five  years  last  past, 
forty-seven  lots  have  been  relet,  and  07ie  hundred  and  thirtem  have 
been  sold. 

The  testimony  is  uniform  and  strong  to  the  effect  that  large 
masses  of  leasehold  property  eventually  became  inferior  in  char- 
acter to  property  held  in  fee.  The  improvements  on  the  lease- 
hold property  of  Trinity  corporation  are  generally  cheap  and 
poor,  being  mostly  the  worst  in  the  neighborhood.  Below  Du- 
ane  street,  however,  the  improvements  are  good. 

Thus  far  the  original  resolutions  of  inquiry. 

In  her  report,  however,  Trinity  Church  has  not  confined  herself 
to  merely  giving  the  information  thus  requested,  but  has  volun- 
tarily communicated  a  large  amount  of  information  besides,  con- 
cerning her  grants  to  the  country  churches  as  well  as  in  the  city, 
and  from  the  year  1748  to  the  present  time  ;  in  ord^r  as  the  re- 
port expresses  it,  to  "  lead  to  a  just  estimate  of  the  unvarying 
policy,  governed  by  which  this  corporation  has  from  an  early 
day  continually  dispensed  abroad  the  property  with  which  it 
was  endowed." 

This  opens  a  wide  field;  but  under  the  instruction  of  the  Sen- 
ate to  your  committee  to  examine  not  only  into  the  report  itself, 
but  also  into  "the  matters  connected  therewith,"  it  is  afield  into 
which  it  is  thus  made  the  duty  of  your  committee  to  follow,  in 


16 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


order  to  reach, — what  the  vestry  desire  to  set  forth, — "  a  just 
estimate"  of  the  policy  of  the  corporation.  Tor  this  purpose, 
your  committee  condense  as  briefly  as  possible  the  full  amount 
of  information  embodied  in  the  evidence. 

In  1697  the  site  ot  the  parish  church  at  the  head  of  Wall 
street  was  given  by  the  English  crown  for  "  the  use  and  behalf 
of  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting  and  to  inhabit 
within  our  said  city  of  New-York,  in  communion  of  our  said 
Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  now  established  by  our  laws." 

The  act  of  incorporation  in  the  same  year  made  the  corpora- 
tion to  consist  of  the  rector,"  together  with  all  the  inhabitants 
from  time  to  time  inhabiting  and  to  inhabit  our  said  city  of 
New- York,  and  in  communion  of  our  aforesaid  Protestant  Church 
of  England,  as  now  established  by  our  lawsj"  and  the  legal  ti- 
tle of  the  corporation  was  therefore  declared  to  be  :  "  The  rec- 
tor and  inhabitants  of  our  said  city  of  New- York  in  communion 
of  our  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  now  established  by  our 
laws." 

The  act  of  the  Colonial  Legislature  of  1704  confirms  the  essen- 
tial powers  of  the  incorporation  by  the  same  title,  adding  the 
words  "and  their  successors." 

The  royal  grant  of  what  is  commonly  called  the  king's  farm, 
(forming  the  bulk  of  the  great  estate  of  Trinity  Church,)  was  made 
to  the  above  incorporated  parish,  under  the  above  corporate  name, 
in  the  year  1705. 

The  Legislature  of  New- York  in  1784  confirmed  all  the 
original  powers  of  the  corporation  without  altering  the  corporate 
name,  which,  however,  in  1788,  Avas  altered  so  as  to  substitute  the 
"  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of  New-York,"  for  the 
"  Protestant  Church  of  England  ;"  and  no  further  legislative 
action  took  effect  until  the  year  1814. 

The  estate  of  Trinity  Church  originally  consisted,  according 
to  the  report,  of  2,068  lots,  of  which,  since  the  year  1748,  318 
lots  have  been  given  away — 691  remain,  and  1059,  as  is  inferred, 
have  been  sold,  yet,  owing  to  the  rapid  rise  of  property  in  the 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


17 


city  of  New- York,  the  value  of  the  691  lots  remaining  is  many 
times  greater  than  was  originally  that  of  the  whole  estate. 

Previous  to  the  year  1814,  it  appears  that  the  policy  of  the 
corporation  was  very  liberal  in  making  grants  of  land  A.  large 
landed  endowment  was  given  to  King's  (now  Columbia)  college 
and  to  Trinity  school — institutions  of  learning  in  connection 
with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  as  well  as  for  several 
other  public  purposes.  In  regard  to  churches,  the  policy  was 
clear  and  well  defined.  Within  the  fifteen  years  before  1814, 
Trinity  had  herself  built  and  set  ofif,  as  separate  parishes  with  a 
competent  endowment,  three  churches — St.  Mark's,  Grace  and  ' 
St.  George's — besides  giving  several  lots  each  to  every  one  of  the 
other  churches  then  existing  in  the  city  as  well  as  to  a  number 
of  other  churches  out  of  the  city  of  New- York. 

With  this  policy  of  landed  endowments,  and  of  building  and 
setting  off  independent  parishes,  thus  firmly  established  aud  thus 
vigorously  and  liberally  carried  out,  doubts  were  nevertheless 
entertained  by  some,  whether  it  were  a  course  which  the  cor- 
poration had  legal  power  to  pursue. 

Application  was  therefore  made,  by  Trinity,  for  the  law  of 
1814 — a  law  which  makes  a  striking  change  in  the  title  of  the 
corporation,  in  the  number  of  the  corporators,  and  in  the  policy 
of  the  vestry. 

That  law  was  asked  for,  on  the  part  of  Trinity^  on  several 
grounds.  As  there  were  now  other  rectors  and  other  incorpo- 
rated churches  in  the  city,  it  was  considered  proper  to  change 
the  title  from  "  The  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- 
York  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
State  of  New- York,"  to  "  The  Rector,  Church-wardens  and  Ves- 
trymen of  Trinity  Church  in  the  City  of  New- York." 

As  the  members  of  the  other  parishes  had  the  right  of  voting 
for  their  own  wardens  and  vestrymen,  it  was  desired  that  they 
should  be  excluded  from  the  right  to  vote  for  the  church-war- 
dens and  vestrymen  who  should  administer  the  great  church 
estate.  To  this  exclusion,  the  parishes  then  in  existence  (though 
not  all  the  members  of  them)  were  at  that  time  willing  to  sub- 

2 


18 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


mit,  inasmuch  as  they  had  all,  "  without  any  exception,  received 
liberal  donations  of  real  and  personal  estates  from  the  corpora- 
tion of  Trinity  Church,"  and  yet,  so  strong  was  tlie  feeling 
that  all  "  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York,  in  commun- 
ion of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,"  had  a  chartered  inter- 
est in  that  estate,  that  the  very  law,  which  excludes  all  from 
voting  except  members  oi  Trinity  parish,  ends  with  the  proviso : 
"  Provided  always,  that  nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be 
construed  to  affect  or  defeat  the  right  of  any  person  or  persons, 
or  of  any  body  corporate,  to  the  estate,  real  or  personal,  now 
held,  occupied  or  enjoyed  by  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Cliurch :" 
a  provisio  which  proves  the  right  to  exist,  while  nevertheless  it 
is  made  an  empty  abstraction  by  the  previous  exclusion  from 
the  right  to  vote,  by  which  alone  the  right  of  property  could  be 
enforced. 

The  III,  IV  and  V  sections  of  that  law,  forming  the  most 
voluminous  and  prominent  part  of  it,  are  wholly  devoted  to  the 
confirming  of  the  past,  and  giving  increased  powers  for  the 
future  carrying  out  the  then  well-established  policy  of  the  cor- 
poration, in  promoting  the  growth  of  the  church,  by  building, 
setting  off,  and  endowing  new  churches  with  landed  property 
enough  to  make  them  independent.  Section  III  therefore  de- 
clares valid  all  such  grants  and  conveyances  heretofore  made, 
or  that  hereafter  may  be  made.  Section  IV  confirms  the  validity 
of  the  setting-off  of  St.  George's  Chapel,  recognizing  its  full 
right  to  the  endowment  it  had  received  from  Trinity,  as  well  as 
the  consequent  exclusion  of  its  members  from  any  further  right 
to  vote  for  church- wardens  and  vestrymen  in  Trinity  parish. 
Section  V  provides  for  the  future  further  subdivision  of  Trinity 
parish,  dividing  the  congregation  or  corporators,  by  setting 
apart,  as  a  separate  church,  any  of  the  churches  or  chapels 
belonging  to  the  parish  (with  the  consent  of  those  to  be  set  off), 
and,  after  incorporation,  gives  such  new  parish  full  power  to 
receive  from  Trinity  "  any  grant,  conveyance  or  gift  of  any 
chapel,  or  other  real  or  personal  estate  for  its  separate  use." 

And  as  an  inducement  to  the  Legislature  to  pass  this  act  of 
1814,  Col.  Troup,  who  appears  to  have  acted  throughout  as  the 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


19 


authorized  agent  of  Trinity  Church  in  procuring  its  passage,  de- 
clared to  the  Council  of  Revision  -.  "  Judging  from  the  past,  it 
is  morally  certain  that  the  future  increase  of  the  population  of 
the  city  will  strongly  recommend  to  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
Church  the  policy  of  dividing  its  corporators,  and  setting  them 
off  in  separate  churches,  with  suitahle  endowments,  and  to  enable 
the  vestry  to  do  this  in  a  mode  free  from  all  legal  doubts,  *  *  * 
is  a  fifth  object  of  the  bill."  And  again  he  says  :  "  The  bill, 
when  passed  into  law,  would  have  the  happy  consequence  of 
enabling  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  from  time  to  time,  as 
society  shall  advance,  to  separate  the  churches,  with  the  consent 
of  their  congregations,  and  to  endow  them  with  competent 
estates.  No  power  can  be  more  congenial  than  this  to  the  spirit 
of  our  republican  system.  The  frequent  execution  of  the  power, 
likewise,  by  breaking  down  the  estate  of  Trinity  Church,  would 
allay  the  fears  of  those  honest  republicans  who  look  upon  large 
estates  as  nurseries  of  sentiments  hostile  to  liberty,  and  it  would 
calm  the  minds  of  those  enthusiastic  devotees  Avho  believe  that 
religious  societies,  when  possessing  wealth,seldom  employ  enough 
of  it  in  the  heavenly  work  of  proi^agating  the  gospel." 

Under  these  inducements,  and  l^ecause  the  law  appeared  only 
to  embody  and  perfect  what  had  notoriously  been  long  the  estab- 
lished policy  of  the  corporation,  the  bill,  passed  both  houses. 
The  other  parishes  of  the  city,  having  received  a  share  of  "  real 
and  personal  estate,"  were  silent ;  but  a  strong  remonstrance 
against  the  law,  as  being  unjust,  was  made  by  a  number  of  mem- 
bers of  tlie  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  city  of  New-York, 
and  serious  doubts  were  felt  as  to  the  constitutionality  of 
disfranchising  a  majority  of  those  who,  by  the  charter,  were 
entitled  to  a  beneficial  interest  in  the  property.  The  Council  of 
Revision  was  equally  divided — three  against  three.  One  of  the 
three  who  voted  for  it  was  the  late  Chancellor  Kent,  who,  as 
appears  in  the  evidence,  afterwards  became  satisfied  that  the  law 
was  unconstitutional,  and  repeatedly  expressed  his  opinion  to 
that  effect.  As  it  was,  it  became  a  law  by  lapse  of  time,  without 
ever  receiving  the  approval  of  the  Executive. 


20 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


The  policy  of  parochial  independence  and  landed  endowment 
being  thus  embodied  in  the  law,  the  record  of  the  gifts  and 
grants  of  the  corporation  will  show  us  the  manner  in  which  it 
was  carried  into  effect.  It  appears  that,  of  the  146  lots  that 
have  been  given  to  churches,  137  were  given  before  1814,  and 
only  9  since.  Of  the  172  lots  given  to  other  purposes,  162  were 
given  before  1814,  and  only  lU  since.  Thus,  in  all  of  the  318 
lots  of  land,  (which  is  all  that  Trinity  has  ever  given,  from  the 
beginning  to  the  present  day),  299  were  granted  before  tlie  law 
of  1814,  and  only  19  since.  And  for  the  last  twenty  years  no 
land  has  been  given  at  all  for  any  purpose,  except  the  five  burial 
plots  in  the  cemetery  mentioned  above. 

The  policy  of  landed  endowment,  which  the  law  of  1814 
was  asked  for  to  facilitate,  thus  appears  to  have  been  almost 
immediately  given  up,  and  has  now  for  a  long  time  been  totally 
abandoned. 

A  similar  contrast  is  found  in  other  points.  It  was  urged,  as 
"  morally  certain,"  that  the  corporators  would  be  divided,  and 
chapels  of  Trinity  set  off  in  separate  churches,  with  suitable  en- 
dowments, but  the  corporators  have  never  since  been  divided, 
nor  Las  any  church  or  chapel  been  set  off.  The  frequent  execu- 
tion of  this  power,"  it  was  represented,  would  "  break  down," 
the  estate  of  Trinity  Church ;  but  as  it  has  never  since  been  ex- 
ecuted at  all,  the  estate  remains  unbroken.  The  sales  of  lots 
have, indeed,  reduced  the  geographical  area  of  her  lands;  but 
the  rise  of  property  has  made  the  present  residue  worth  many 
times  as  much  as  the  whole  of  the  original  King's  farm.  The 
estate  cf  the  corporation  has  therefore  been  steadily,  and  of  late 
years  very  rapidly,  increasing  in  value,  instead  of  being  "  broken 
down." 

The  other  great  object  of  the  original  policy  of  Trinity  corpo- 
ration, as  embodied  in  the  law  of  1814,  was  as  has  been  shown, 
the  ecouragiug  the  formation  of  new  and  independent  parishes; 
the  endowment  in  land  being,  in  fact,  only  a  means  to  that  end. 
Instead  of  land.  Trinity  has  indeed  continued  to  contribute  to 
other  parishes,  but  it  has  been  wholly  in  the  way  of  pecuniary 
grants,  made  either  in  specific  sums  or  in  annual  appropriations 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


21 


terminable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  vestry.  And  in  order  to  obtain 
money  to  bestow  in  this  way,  more  than  half  the  original  estate 
has  been  sold.  The  eflfect  of  this  system,  as  appears  from  the 
evidence,  has  been  to  injure,  instead  of  promoting  the  independ- 
ence of  the  parishes  thus  aided.  The  suras  of  money  were  in 
most  cases  soon  spent,  and  were  followed  by  an  application  for 
more.  The  possibility  of  a  stopping  of  the  annual  stipend  would, 
indeed,  naturally  have  a  tendency  to  produce  as  great  a  reliance 
upon  Trinity  for  opinions,  as  for  pecuniary  support  ;  especially 
when  it  is  viewed  in  connection  with  the  evidence  of  strong  par- 
tizanship  in  making  the  grants,  which  is  given  in  such  decided 
terms  by  many  uf  the  witnesses,  and  strongly  corroborated  by  the 
striking  disproportion  in  the  grants  themselves,  as  stated  in  the 
report.  Annual  allowances  are  now  made  to  no  less  than  thirty- 
eight  parishes,  amounting  in  all  to  $16,875  a  year. 

Again  :  at  or  before  the  year  1834,  there  appears  to  have  been 
developed  another  feature  of  this  new  policy,  as  bearing  upon 
parochial  independence,  and  this  was,  the  regarding  these  money 
grants  as  loans,  and,  as  a  consequence  from  this,  the  requiring  in 
return  a  bond  and  mortgage  on  the  church  edifice  of  the  parish 
thus  aided,  drawing  interest  from  date.  This  mortgaging  with 
interest  is  represented  in  the  supplement,  as  only  done  in  order 
to  secure  such  buildings  to  the  permanent  use  of  the  church;  and 
it  is  added,  that  the  interest  is  never  demanded  or  paid,  nor  are 
such  mortgages  ever  forclosed;  but  it  is  acknowldged  that  the 
vestry  has  full  legal  power  to  do  both. 

There  are  now  sixty-six  parishes  incumbered  with  these 
mortgages  and  accumulated  interest,  to  the  gross  amount  of 
nearly  $600,000,  all  held  by  Trinity  church,  and  they  can 
hardly  be  considered  in  any  other  light  than  as  mortgages  upon 
that  very  independence  which  it  was  one  object  of  the  law  of 
1814  to  secure. 

Nor  is  even  this  all,  for  the  aid  of  Trinity,  when  given  as  an 
annual  appropriation  or  pension,  or  on  mortgage,  has  been 
regarded,  not  as  the  administration  of  a  trust  for  the  benefit  of 
those  to  whom  it  belonged  by  the  charter,  nor  yet  as  a  loan  on 


22 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


good  security,  but  rather  as  a  pure  gratuity,  "a  bounty,"  an  act 
of  "munificence,"  for  which  due  "gratitude"  was  expected  ever 
after;  a  mode  of  regarding  the  subject  liable  to  interfere  still 
further  with  the  independence  of  those  thus  aided.  The  weight 
of  this  sense  of  obligation  has  been  still  further  increased  by  the 
frequency  and  facility  with  which  applications  have  been  refused 
and  the  ungracious  and  wearisome  reluctance  with  which  grants 
are  obtained  when  obtained  at  all. 

The  result  has  been,  th.at  so  far  as  the  influence  of  Trinity  has 
been  able  to  make  itself  felt,  the  provisions  of  the  law  of  1814, 
for  securing  the  independence  of  the  parishes,  seems  to  have 
been  as  completely  frustrated  as  those  intended  to  facilitate  en- 
dowments in  land. 

The  increase  of  population  in  the  city  of  New- York,  it  was 
urged  by  the  vestry,  through  Col.  Troup,  made  it  "morally  cer- 
tain" tliat  Trinity  would  carry  out  the  liberal  policy  embodied 
in  that  law.  The  population  of  the  city  has  indeed  increased 
from  105,000  in  1814  to  629,850  in  1855;  but  the  corporators 
have  not  yet  been  divided,  nor  any  church  or  chapel  built  and 
set  off  or  endowed.  One  expensive  pewed  chapel  has  been,  in- 
deed, lately  built  for  Trinity  parish  itself  in  one  of  the  weal- 
thiest portions  of  the  city  and  iu  the  neighborhood  of  several 
other  churches.  The  wards  inhabited  mainly  by  the  working 
classes,  however,  appear  to  have  been  almost  totally  neglected. 
In  the  4th,  6th,  13th  and  14th  wards,  with  a  population  of  100,- 
499  souls,  there  is  not  a  single  Episcopal  church.  The  8th, 
11th  and  16th  wards,  with  a  population  of  128,626  souls,  have 
each  biit  one  Episcopal  church;  and  there  are  not  in  those 
wards  missions  or  other  arrangements  of  any  kind  for  religious 
instruction  by  Episcopalians;  nor  does  Trinity  Church  employ 
any  clergyman  as  missionary  at  large  anywhere  throughout  the 
whole  extent  of  the  city.  One  of  the  witnesses,  a  parish  clergy- 
man, speaks  of  the  spiritual  destitution  of  the  northwestern  por- 
tion of  the  city  as  "awful,"  and  tells  us  that  a  communication 
to  Trinity  vestry  from  responsible  persons  concerning  a  most 
noble  proposal  to  remedy  it,  never  received  the  slightest  atten- 
tion tliat  he  was  aware  of.    The  increase  of  the  city  population 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


23 


has  been  some  200,000  souls  during  the  last  ten  years  alone,  and 
yet  the  increase  of  church  accommodation  for  the  poor  is  testi- 
fied to  be  "  very  inconsiderable." 

Trinity,  it  appears,  has  never  built  any  church  for  the  work- 
ing classes,  or  in  those  parts  of  the  city  chiefly  inhabited  by 
them;  nay,  during  the  past  few  years,  it  seems  that  three 
churches  situated  in  districts  almost  wholly  inhabited  by  the 
working  classes,  or  those  still  more  destitute,  have  been  lost  to 
the  Episcopal  church  in  those  localities.  Of  these,  the  two 
down  town  were  Zion  on  the  Five  Points,  sold  to  the  Romanists; 
and  the  old  Christ  church  in  Anthony-street,  sold  for  secular 
uses;  nor  has  any  effort  yet  been  made  by  Trinity  to  supply 
their  place.  The  third,  St.  Matthew's,  though  surrounded  by 
landed  estate  of  Trinity  corporation,  and  the  first  free  church 
ever  founded  in  the  city  of  New-York  by  individual  liberality, 
has  at  length ,  after  in  vain  laying  its  wants  before  Trinity  vestry 
for  six  months,  been  reconveyed  to  the  donor,  and  is  now  shut 
up  and  offered  for  sale  :  and  in  another  case,  where  a  clergyman, 
who  not  only  serves  his  own  parish  without  salary,  but  pays 
largely  beside  towards  its  necessary  expenses,  offered  to  give, 
himself,  two-thirds  of  the  cost  for  a  new  free  church  and  church 
schools,  in  a  most  destitute  portion  of  the  city,  if  Trinity  would 
give  the  other  third,  the  offer  was  left  for  a  year  afld  a  half 
unnoticed;  and  though  renewed  in  a  differrent  shape  a  year  ago, 
it  has  even  as  yet  received  no  further  attention,  except  to  be 
unanimously  reported  against  by  the  standing  committee,  to 
whom,  of  coui'se,  it  was  referred.  It  is  added,  that  the  reason 
given  by  individual  members  for  this  refusal,  is  the  want  of 
present  pecuniaz-y  ability  on  the  part  of  the  vestry.  Meanwhile 
of  the  few  free  churches  which  actually  afford  some  small 
accommodation  to  the  working  classes,  the  greater  part  are  stated 
to  be  but  small,  inferior  buildings,  and  feebly  supported.  The 
new  policy  of  Trinity  corporation  has  therefore  disappointed  the 
authoritative  representation  of  Colonel  Troup,  that  it  would 
make  the  Episcopal  church  keep  pace  with  the  increasing  popu- 
lation of  the  city,  as  completely  as  it  has  frustrated  the  wise  and 
liberal  provisions  for  parochial  independence  by  means  of  a 
competent  endowment  in  land. 


24 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


The  evidence  shows  that  another  evil  has  arisen  out  of  this 
failure  on  the  part  of  Trinity  Church  to  fulfil  the  pledges  under 
which  she  obtained  the  law  of  1814.  The  wealthy  and  liberal 
Episcopalians  in  the  city,  who  give  freely  to  other  objects,  will 
not  relieve  Trinity  from  her  responsibility,  by  doing  her  duty  at 
their  own  expense;  and  thus  little  or  nothing  is  done,  and  the 
influence  of  Trinity  succeeds  in  effectually  preventing  that  very 
growth  to  which  the  law  of  1814  gave  her  new  powers  in  order 
to  promote. 

Nor  does  it  seem  that  a  policy  so  injurious  to  the  rest  of  the 
city  has  been  really  of  advantage  to  Trinity  parish  itself.  Its 
congregations  have  indeed  had  two  new  churches  built  for  them, 
at  a  cost  of  over  |600,000,  the  whole  of  which  appears  to  have 
been  paid  from  the  corporation  estate. 

But  their  own  active  liberality  and  zeal  have  been  so  far 
weakened,  that  their  four  congregations  united  do  less,  as  is  tes- 
tified, than  some  single  independent  congregation  in  the  same 
city,  with  little  or  no  endowment.  And  even  the  administra- 
tion of  the  vast  and  growing  estate  itself,  seems  to  be  affected  by 
the  same  general  torpor.  There  is  so  little  interest  in  the  vestry 
elections,  that  in  eight  out  of  the  past  ten  years,  an  average  of 
hardly  ope  in  ten  of  the  corporators  cared  to  appear;  and,  on 
one  occasion,  only  23  persons  voted  for  the  22  wardens  and 
vestrymen.  The  same  characteristic  apathy  appears  to  extend 
even  to  the  action  of  the  vestry  itself,  where  nearly  everything 
is  left  to  a  standing  committee  of  six,  with  the  comptroller  and 
clerk;  and  a  vestryman  not  a  member  of  that  particular  com- 
mittee seems  to  know  little  or  nothing  of  the  business  or  state  of 
affairs  of  the  corporation.  An  annual  statement  of  the  affairs  is 
indeed  made  by  this  committee,  of  late  years,  and  is  left  in  manu- 
script at  the  ofi&ce  for  the  inspection  of  such  of  the  vestrymen  as 
may  v/ish  to  see  it;  and  a  committee  of  vestrymen,  not  members 
of  the  standing  committee,  is  appointed  to  examine  this  annual 
statement;  but  in  so  doing,  as  is  testified  by  a  vestryman  who 
has  served  on  such  examining  committee,  they  are  permitted  to 
inspect  only  such  of  the  books  of  the  corporation  as  are  referred 
to  in  the  statement  itself.    The  statement  is  never  printed,  the 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


25 


vestry  thinking  it  "  not  worth  while  and  the  corporators,  of 
course,  appear  to  know  nothing  about  it. 

It  is  no  wonder  that,  in  such  a  state  of  things,  the  question 
"  Do  you  think  that  Trinity  Church  has  done  its  utmost  to  make 
the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation  available  for  the 
founding  or  support  or  promotion  of  religious,  charitable  or  edu- 
cational institutions  or  purposes  should  be  answered,  as  it  has 
been  by  every  witness  asked,  with  a  decisive  "  No  ;"  or,  with  a 
negative,  half  veiled  in  such  careful  qualifications  as  only  make 
its  meaning  more  pointed.  And  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  policy 
of  the  corporation  and  its  results  are,  as  they  are  testified  to  be, 
the  subject  of  general  complaint  among  Episcopalians. 

Your  committee  would  present  yet  one  more  point  of  contrast 
between  the  results  of  the  new  policy  and  the  old.  The  old 
policy  gave  to  Columbia  College  its  magnificent  landed  endow- 
ments ;  gave  to  Trinity  school  the  larger  part  of  its  rich  estate  ; 
did  the  same  for  St.  Mark's,  Grace,  and  St.  George's  churches  ; 
as  also  for  the  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Religion  and 
Learning,  which  is  now  wealthy  from  its  land  ;  and  a  similar 
result  has  followed  the  many  smaller  endotvments  of  land  to 
other  churches.  All  this  permanent  and  growing  good  was  ac- 
complished by  giving  away  only  318  lots.  In  carrying  out  the 
other  policy,  1059  lots  have  been  sold — more  than  three  times 
as  many  as  sufiiced  for  all  those  splendid  endowments  put  to- 
gether ;  and  the  result  of  this  alienation  of  more  than  half  of  the 
original  estate  has  been  to  promote  dependency,  feebleness  and 
deadness,  to  the  degree  which  has  been  testified.  Nor  in  a 
merely  pecuniary  point  of  view  is  it  any  better.  For  while 
Trinity  herself  estimates  the  present  value  of  those  318  lots  to 
be,  to  those  now  holding  them,  at  least  a  million  and  a  half,  her 
own  report  sets  down*  the  aggregate  of  all  the  pecuniary  grants 
and  stipends  paid  out  of  the  sale  of  the  1059  lots  as  only  a  trifle 
over  one  million  ($1,007,530.83.)  And  time  will  make  the  318 
yet  more  valuable,  with  each  year  ;  while  the  latter  is  for  the 
most  part  gone  already,  leaving  only  those  "  unproductive 
mortgages,  on  interest,"  behind. 


26 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


It  will  be  seen  that  there  is  no  question  raised  in  regard  to 
the  personal  integrity,  and  no  impeachment  of  the  purity  of  per- 
sonal motive,  of  any  member  of  that  corporation.  Your  com- 
mittee have  merely,  from  the  evidence  before  them,  drawn  an 
outline  of  the  policy  of  the  corporation,  as  embodied  in  its  own 
acts  before  and  since  the  law  of  1814.  And  they  find  that  "  a 
just  estimate  of  that  policy  is,  not  that  it  has  been  "unvarying," 
as  the  report  claims  in  its  behalf,  but  so  completely  changed  as 
to  be  the  opposite  of  that  which  it  once  was,  and  which  it  prom- 
ised to  continue  to  be.  Instead  of  being  "  unvarying,"  therefore, 
it  has  simply  been  reversed. 

There  is  one  part  of  the  law  of  1814  which  has  not  yet  been 
referred  to.  It  has  been  seen  that  the  great  majority  of  Episco- 
palians in  the  city  of  New-York,  have  been  excluded  from  all 
vote  or  voice  in  the  management  of  this  great  estate;  and  that 
no  report  is  ever  made,  even  to  the  corporators  of  Trinity  par- 
ish, or  the  beneficiaries  under  the  trust.  It  is  well  known  that 
the  convention  of  the  Episcopal  diocese  of  New-York  is  purely 
an  ecclesiastical  body,  having  no  power  to  inquire  into  the 
management  of  the  temporalities  of  any  parish,  and  it  does 
not  appear  that  any  knowledge  of  its  affairs,  which  exists  even 
among  its  own  corporators,  is  derived  except  from  the  printed 
reports  made  to  resolutions  of  enquiry  passed  by  one  or  the 
other  of  the  Houses  of  the  Legislature.  The  Legislature,  then, 
being  the  only  body  where  responsibility  can  be  clothed  with 
practical  effect,  there  is  meaning  in  the  following  portion  of  the 
last  section  of  the  law  of  1814  :  '■^And  be  it  further  enacted,  That 
in  every  case  where  a  church  or  religious  society,  which  has 
been  or  may  be  duly  incorporated,  shall  have  exhibited  such 
account  and  inventory  as  is  specified  in  the  ninth  section* 
cf  the  act  entitled  '  An  act  to  provide  for  the  incorporation 
of  religious  societies,'  it  shall  not  be  necessary  for  such  church 
or  society  again  to  exhibit  any  account  and  inventory,  unless 
the  said  church  or  society,  subsequent  to  such  exhibition, 
shall  have  purchased  or  acquired  any  lands,  tenements  or 
hereditaments  within  this  State,  any  act,  law  or  usage  to 

•  The  10th  section  of  the  law  as  revised  and  re-enaoted  in  1813. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHTRCH. 


27 


the  contrary  notwithstanding,"  Your  committee  suppose  that 
it  is  in  implied  reliance  upon  this  provision  of  the  law 
of  1814  that  the  corporation,  in  its  report,  complains  so  griev- 
ously of  your  resolutions  of  inquiry.  It  does  not  "  acknow- 
ledge the  power  of  the  Senate  to  exact  such  information  ; " 
declares  that  such  requisition  "is  not  justified  by  any  legal 
principle,  and  is  oppressive  of  this  corporation,"  and  "an  as- 
sumption of  the  powers  of  the  courts."  The  vestry  add,  that 
they  "have  found  the  answer  to  these  repeated  requirements 
expensive  and  onerous,  and  believe  them  to  be  an  infringement 
of  the  chartered  rights  of  Trinity  church  ; "  and  they  humbly 
protest  against  the  right  of  the  Legislature,  or  either  branch  of 
it,  to  call  for  reports  from  this  vestry  relative  to  the  condition 
or  atfairs  of  this  corporation."  The  above  quoted  section  of 
the  law  of  1814,  would  indeed  excuse  the  corporation  from 
making  any  additional  account  or  inventory  j  no  additional  pro- 
perty having  been  purchased  since  the  report  of  1854  was  made. 
Yet  reference  is  made  in  the  report,  to  "  chartered  rights,"  but 
not  to  this  law  of  1814.  And  it  is  a  remarkabte  peculiarity  of 
the  report  and  supplement,  as  well  as  the  previous  reports  of 
1846  and  1854,  and  other  publications  emanating  from  Trinity 
church  (all  of  which  have  been  consulted  by  your  committee,  as 
of  the  highest  authority  in  behalf  of  the  corporation),  that  in  not 
one  of  them  all  is  there  the  slightest  allusion  to  the  law  of  1814, 
or  any  hint  that  any  such  law  was  ever  passed. 

But  though  this  section  of  that  law  was  evidently  intended  to 
relieve  the  corporation  from  making  any  further  report  of  its 
affairs,  yet  your  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  can  hardly 
bind  this  Legislature,  when  the  very  object  of  the  inquiry,  is  to 
ascertain  whether  the  other  provisions  of  that  same  law  have 
been  fairly  carried  out.  And  in  view  of  the  true  state  of  facts, 
as  now  drawn  forth  by  this  inquiry,  namely,  that  only  those  parts 
of  that  law  have  been  actually  put  in  use  which  conferred  upon 
the  corporation  the  power  to  reverse  the  policy  embodied  in  the 
remainder,  and  thereby  to  sacrifice  everything  promised,  in  order 
to  carry  out  the  only  possibility  which  had  been  expressly  dis- 
claimed when  the  law  was  asked  for.  In  this  state  of  the  facts, 
which  are  thus  made  apparent,  it  seems  but  a  natural  conse- 


28 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


quence  that  the  complaint  and  protest  of  the  report  disappear 
altogether  in  the  supplement. 

Tour  committee  do  not  charge  that,  in  obtaining  the  law  of 
1814  under  the  representations  employed  for  that  purpose,  the 
corporation  were  guilty  of  deliberate  and  premeditated  fraud  in 
setting  forth  inducements  which  they  never  intended  to  realize; 
for  there  is  no  doubt  that,  both  in  obtaining  the  law  and  in  sub- 
sequently altering  their  policy,  the  members  of  the  corporation 
were  actuated  by  their  honest  convictions  as  to  what  was  best 
for  the  interests  of  the  church,  as  they  understood  them;  and 
doubtless  believed  that  the  success  of  the  section  to  which  the 
Vestry  belonged,  and  the  carrying  of  the  measures  in  which  it 
was  interested,  was  of  more  consequence  to  the  ultimate  good  of 
the  church,  than  any  incidental  evil  resultiog  from  the  change. 
But  thus  much  your  committee  feel  bound  to  say,  that,  if  there 
had  been  any  such  fraudulent  intention  to  obtain  power  under 
that  law,  in  order  to  defeat  the  very  ends  v;hich  it  proposed  to 
secure,  your  committee  cannot  see  that  it  would  have  been 
necessaiy  for  the  corporation,  in  that  case,  to  alter  in  any  respect 
that  which  has  been  their  actual  course,  in  order  to  carry  out 
such  fraudulent  intention  with  entire  success. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  terms  of  the  original  grant  of 
the  estate  of  Trinity  Church  stated  it  to  be  for  the  benefit  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  iu  communion  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church.  It  appears  from  the  report  that  a  very  large 
aggregate  of  grants  has  been  made  for  the  benefit  of  churches, 
individuals  and  institutions  out  of  the  city  of  New-York.  Yet 
your  committee  have  heard  no  complaint  of  any  such  appropria- 
tion. On  the  contraty,  all  the  witnesses  testifying  are  unanimous 
in  denying  that  even  the  wish  exists,  in  the  city,  to  diminish  or 
prevent  the  grants  made  for  the  aid  of  churches  in  the  country. 
The  evidence  shows  that  those  who  complain  most  deeply  of  the 
policy  of  the  corporation  in  other  respects,  are  themselves  liberal 
with  their  own  means  in  aiding  the  poorer  cliurches  in  the  rural 
districts;  and  their  only  regret  is,  not  that  Trinity  does  so  much 
for  the  country,  but  that  she  does  not  do  more,  both  for  the 
country  and  the  city  out  of  her  abundant  and  rapidly  increasing 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


29 


means;  instead  of  holding  the  estate,  in  mass,  for  steady  accu- 
mulation. 

The  committee  consider  that  their  duty  terminates  by  placing 
before  the  Senate  in  this  report  the  prominent  and  important 
parts  of  the  testim  «uy,  and  in  submitting  the  documents  re- 
ceived during  the  investigation,  with  all  the  testimony  they  have 
taken;  which  is  now  respectfully  submitted,  for  such  action  by 
the  Legislature  as  the  importance  of  the  interests  involved  may 
be  supposed  to  require. 

M.  SPEXCER, 
JAMES  NOXOX, 
J.  H.  RAMSEY, 

Select  Committee. 


EXHIBIT  C. 


New- York,  Nov.  29,  1856. 

To  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Churchy  in  the  City  qf  JVew-York: 

Sirs. — On  the  19th  of  February  last  you  caused  to  be  presen- 
ted, to  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  New-York,  a  communication, 
in  reply  to  a  resolution  passed  by  that  body  on  the  13th  of 
April,  1855.  That  communication  was  referred  by  the  Senate  to 
the  undersigned,  as  a  special  committee. 

The  Senate  subsequently,  by  resolution,  authorized  the  select 
committee,  to  whom  had  been  thus  r^erred  the  said  report  of 
Trinity  Church,  to  examine  into  the  matters  connected  therewith 
dm-ing  the  recess,  and  to  report  to  the  next  Legislature. 

In  pursuance  of  such  reference  and  authority,  and  in  dis- 
charge of  the  duties  thus  devolved  upon  them,  the  committee 
will  meet  on  Tuesday  the  2nd  day  of  December  next,  at  10 
o'clock  A.M.,  at  the  rooms  of  the  committee,  in  the  Bank  of  Com- 
merce buildings,  in  Nassau  street,  opposite  the  Post  Ofiice,  in  this 
city;  and  at  the  same  hour  and  place  on  each  succeeding  day 
(Sundays  excepted),  until  the  said  examination  shall  be  com- 
pleted. 

Should  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  desire  to  present,  to  the 
committee,  any  statement  or  explanation  in  regard  to  any  of  the 
matters  referred  to  them,  the  committee  will  afford  them  an  op- 
portunity of  doing  so,  at  the  place  above  mentioned,  and  at 
any  time  during  the  said  examination,  that  may  be  most  agreea- 
ble to  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church. 

We  are,  sirs,  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servants. 


EXHIBIT  D. 

Office  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  ? 
JVo.  187  Fulton  street,  JYew- York,  Dec.  2, 1856.  I 

To  the  Hon.  M.  Spencer,  James  JYoxoii  and 

Joseph  H.  Ramsey,  Special  Committee  of  the  Senate: 

Gentlemen — I  duly  received  your  communication  of  the  29th 
ult.,  addressed  "  to  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church  in  city  of  New- 
York,"  saying  you  intended  to  meet  this  day,  and  on  each  suc- 
ceeding day,  to  examine  the  matters  of  its  report  to  the  Senate 
in  February  last,  and  that  should  the  vestry  desire  to  present  to 
the  committee  any  statement  or  explanation  in  regard  to  the 
matters  of  the  report  referred  to  it,  the  committee  would  afford 
them  an  opportunity  of  doing  so. 

If  the  committee  will  be  pleased  to  communicate  to  me  for 
the  vestry,  what  statement  or  explanation  it  wants  in  regard  to 
any  of  the  matters  contained  in  the  report,  I  will  feel  it  my  duty 
to  submit  the  same,  and  doubt  not  they  will  cheerfully  and 
promptly  furnish  the  requisite  statement  or  explanation  to  the 
committee. 

I  am  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  E.  DUNSCOMB, 

Com'ptroller ,  4rc. 


/ 


EXHIBIT  E. 


New-York,  2d  Dec,  1856. 
To  the  Vestrymen  oj  Trinity  Churchy  in  the  city  of  JVew-York: 

Gentlemen — In  reply  to  yours  of  this  morning,  the  committee 
have  to  say  that,  they  desire  the  information  required  under  the 
resolutions  of  the  Senate  of  April  13,  1855,  in  reference  to  the 
names  of  the  persons  entitled  under  an  act  to  alter  the  name  of 
the  corporation  of  Trinity  church,  and  for  other  purposes,  passed 
January  15,  1814,  to  vote  at  the  annual  election  f(»r  church  war- 
dens and  vestrymen  of  the  present  corporation  of  Trinity  church; 
specifying  those  who  vote  as  communicants,  and  those  who  vote 
as  pew  holders  in  the  said  church ;  and  the  names  of  the  persons 
who  did  actually  vote  at  each  of  the  three  last  annual  elections, 
held  for  the  choice  of  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  said 
corporation;  also  whether  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church 
have  any  additional  mortgages  or  securities,  besides  those  set  forth 
in  their  last  report  to  the  Senate;  if  so, a  schedule  showing  names 
of  mortgagors,  amount  secured  and  unpaid,  and  when  given. 
Also  the  real  value  of  each  lot  or  parcel  of  land,  owned  by  said 
corporation,  irrespective  of  the  leases  thereon. 

Very  respectfully,  etc., 

M.  SPENCER, 
J.  NOXON, 
J.  H.  RAMSEY, 
[Copy.]  Committee. 


(A.  No.  1.) 


EXHIBIT  r. 

Office  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church. 

mw-York,  ./}prii  —  Jl.  D.,  1855. 


Received  from  Charles  H.  Clayton,  the  sum  of  sixty-four  dol- 
lars, to  and  for  the  use  of  the  corporation  styled  "  The  Rector, 
Church-wardens,  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  church,  in  the  city 
of  New-York,"  for  and  in  consideration  of  which  the  said  corpo- 
ration doth,  by  these  presents,  grant  and  assign,  to  him  and  to 
his  family,  at  the  times,  and  upon  the  occasions,  mentioned  in 
the  schedule  hereto  annexed,  for  the  term  commencing  on  the 
flrsi  Sunday  after  Easter,  in  this  present  year,  and  continuing  to 
and  including  Easter  day  in  the  next  year,  and  no  longer,  the 
use  and  easement  of  the  seat,  slip,  or  pew,  being  in  the  chapel 
of  the  said  corporation,  erected  between  West  25th  and  West 
26th  streets,  near  to  the  Broadway  in  said  city,  called  Trinity 
chapel;  such  seat,  slip,  or  pew,  being  numbered  one,  and  sit- 
uated on  the  east  aisle^  west  side. 

It  being  expressly  understood,  that  such  use  or  easement  is 
subject  to  the  regulations,  and  upon  the  terms  and  conditions  set 
forth  in  the  said  schedule  heretofore  annexed. 

W  E.  DUNSCOMB,  Comptroller. 

Schedule 

Of  regulations  respecting  the  pews  in  Trinity  chapel^  and  of  the 
terms  and  conditions  of  the  letting  referred  to  in  the  above  memo- 
randum^ and  to  be  taken  as  part  thereof : 

I  The  privilege,  or  right,  granted  by  the  above  memoranaum 
shall  not  be  assigned. 

II.  The  exclusive  right,  or  privilege,  above  granted  shall  be 
claimed  and  enjoyed  at  and  upon  the  following  times  and  occa- 
sions only,  that  is  to  say :  The  ordinary  morning  and  afternoon 


3 


34 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


services  of  every  Sunday  in  the  year,  Christmas  day,  Good  Fri- 
day, Accension  day,  and  Thanksgiving  day,  and  upon  no  other 
day,  and  at  no  other  times  of  those  days,,  and  upon  no  occasion 
of  Divine  service  at  night. 

III.  After  the  expiration  of  the  term  for  which  the  privilege 
or  right  within  mentioned  has  been  granted,  that  is  to  say,  on 
one  of  the  three  last  days  of  Easter  Week,  in  the  year  1856,  the 
same  privilege  or  right  for  another  term,  commencing  on  the 
next  Sunday  thereafter,  and  ending  on,  and  including  Easter 
Day  in  the  year  succeeding,  be  the  term  greater  or  less  than  a 
year,  will  be  disposed  of  to  the  highest  bidder,  unless  the  pre- 
vious holder  of  such  privilege  or  right  shall  apply  and  agree 
for  the  same  belore  such  time,  and  pay  the  sum  required  there- 
for, at  the  office  of  said  Corporation.  Notice  of  the  amount  of 
rent  demanded  for  the  next  term  will  be  given  to  such  of  the 
occupants  as  shall  have  lodged  in  the  office  of  the  Corporation 
a  memorandum  of  the  place  to  which  such  notice  shall  be  sent, 
one  month  before  the  time  appointed  for  the  letting. 

IV.  The  above  agreement,  or  the  occupation  of  a  seat,  does 
not  give  to  any  person  the  right  and  privilege  of  a  corporator. 
Copies  of  the  ordinance  of  the  corporation  to  regulate  the 
annual  elections,"  &c.,  passed  March  25th,  1844,  can  be  obtained 
at  the  office  of  the  corporation. 

V.  No  alteration  shall  be  made  in  any  seat,  slip  or  pew,  or  of 
the  furniture,  without  the  consent  of  the  vestry,  or  of  their  offi.- 
cer,  agent,  or  servant  duly  authorised. 

VI.  There  shall  be  no  name  or  mark  put  upon  any  seat,  slip 
or  pew. 

VII.  If  any  repairs  become  necessary,  notice  thereof  must  be 
given  to  the  sexton. 

VIII.  During  divine  service,  after  the  reading  of  the  portion 
of  the  Psalter,  the  sexton  may  put  strangers  into  the  seats,  slips 
or  pews,  that  are  wholly  unoccupied  by  the  tenant,  or  by  some 
person  for  him. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


35 


Office  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  ? 

•    April,  1856.  i 

Heceived  from  Charles  H.  Clayton,  sixty-five  dollars,  for  the 

use  of  within  mentioned  pew  No.  one,  in  Trinity  chapel,  during 

the  term  commencing  Easter  Monday,  in  this  year,  and  ending 

on  the  first  day  of  May,  next  year,  such  use  to  he  subject  to  the 

regulations,  and  upon  the  terms  and  conditions  contained  in  the 

schedule  annexed  to  within  agreement,  except  the  fourth. 

S65.  Wm.  E.  DUNSCOMB,  Comptroller. 

Office  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  185  . 

Received  from  dollars,  for  the  use  of  within  mentioned 

pew  No.  ,  in  Trinity  chapel,  during  the  term  commencing  on 
the  first  Sunday  after  Easter,  in  this  year,  and  ending  on  Easter 
Day,  next  year;  such  use  to  be  subject  to  the  regulations,  and 
upon  the  terms  and.  conditions  contained  in  the  schedule  an- 
nexed to  the  within  agreement, 

%  Comptroller. 

Office  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,       185  . 
Beceived  from  dollars,  for  the  use  of  within  mentioned 

pew  No.  ,  in  Trinity  chapel,  during  the  term  commencing  on 
the  first  Sunday  after  Easter,  in  tliis  year,  and  ending  on  Easter 
Day,  next  year^  such  use  to  be  subject  to  the  regulations,  and 
upon  the  terms  and  conditions  contained  in  the  schedule 
iannexed  to  the  within  agreement 

Comptroller. 


EXHIBIT  G. 


To  the  Rector^  Wardms  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  JVoJO-York: 

Gentlemen — The  undersigned,  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  St. 
Matthew's  Church  in  this  city,  beg  leave  respectfully  to  repre- 
sent :  That  some  three  years  since,  they  submitted  to  your  corpo- 
ration a  full  statement  of  the  condition,  means  and  wants  of  this 
parish,  and  asked  for  such  an  appropriation  from  the  church 
property  in  your  trust,  as  would  enable  them  to  make  some 
indispensable  repairs  and  improvements — pay  off  the  mortgage, 
which  rests  upon  the  parsonage  house  and  lot — and  some  other 
debts.  In  about  one  year,  that  application  was  responded  to  by 
an  increase  of  $200  per  ann.  for  five  years,  to  the  $300  previous- 
ly received.  In  other  words,  it  was  a  grant  of  $1000,  payable  in 
semi-annual  instalments  for  that  period.  That  was  the  only 
application  we  ever  made  to  your  body  for  aid,  until  the  pre- 
sent :  and  this  we  beg  to  say  will  be  the  last,  unless  the  response 
be  more  in  accordance  with  the  imperative  necessities  of  our  case. 

St.  Matthew's  was  the  first  church  ever  founded  in  this  city  by 
individual  munificence.  It  has  no  endowment  whatever,  and 
not  one  wealthy  individual  belongs  thereto.  It  has  been  esta- 
blished nearly  fourteen  years.  It  is  contiguous  to  the  church 
estate  in  your  custody,  and  many  of  its  congregation  live  there- 
on. It  is  virtually  a  free  church,  and  for  some  years  was  actu- 
ally so.  Its  revenues  from  pews  does  not  now  exceed  $500  per 
ann.  and  is  constantly  growing  less  by  the  removal  of  its  mem- 
bers to  the  upper  wards  of  the  city,  and  into  its  suburbs.  It 
has  a  debt  of  about  $1,300,  beside  a  mortgage  of  $3,500  on  the 
parsonage ;  we  have  had  to  pay  during  the  past  year,  over  $400 
for  city  taxes  and  assessments.  The  church  edifice  is  old,  unin- 
viting m  appearance,  and  much  needs  repair.  It  cannot  be 
encumbered  by  debt  or  lien  of  any  kind.  We  have  exerted 
ourselves  to  the  utmost,  and  cannot  consent  to  continue  this 
struggle  beyond  the  1st  of  May  next  ensuing,  unless  such  aid 
shall  be  received  from  the  church  funds  in  your  custody  as  will 
enable  us  to  cancel  our  present  indebledness,  repair,  and  put  the 
church  edifice  somewhat  on  an  equality  with  others  around  it, 
and  ensure  its  rector  a  salary  of  not  less  than  $1,200  per  ann. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


37 


We  lay  these  facts  before  you,  gentlemen,  in  the  spirit  of 
christian  candor,  and  with  all  courtesy.  It  now  remains  with 
you  to  say,  whether  on  the  1st  of  May  next,  this  parish  shall 
cease  to  exist,  and  the  property  be  returned  to  the  donor  there- 
of, for  the  want  of  some  of  that  nursing  aid,  which  is  now  indis- 
pensable to  its  continuance.  As  you  hold  ample  means,  and 
hold  them  for  such  purposes  in  this  city,  on  you  must  the  re- 
sponsibility rest  of  so  painful  an  event. 

In  conclusion,  gentlemen,  it  only  remains  lor  us  to  solicit  as 
early  an  expression  of  your  pleasure  in  this  matter  as  is  con- 
venient :  and  to  submit  for  your  information  the  following  reso- 
lution of  our  vestry,  this  day  adopted : 

Resolved  unanimously,  "  That  this  vestry,  feeling  assured,  that 
from  causes  beyond  their  control,  a  crisis  has  come  in  the  alfairs 
of  this  parish,  which  without  extraneous  aid  it  cannot  survive, 
and  cordially  endorsing  the  statement  of  facts  in  the  accompa- 
nying application  to  Trinity  Church,  do  now  agree  and  declare : 
That  the  continuance  of  this  parish  beyond  the  first  day  of  May 
next  ensuing,  or  its  extinction  at  that  time,  be  dependent  upon 
the  action  of  Trinity  Church  Corporation  in  the  premises.  And 
in  the  event  of  no  satisfactory  arrangement  being  had  by  the  1st 
of  February  next  ensuing,  tlie  rector,  and  church-wardens,  with 
Messrs.  Burtnett,  Bunn  and  Phelps,  be,  and  are  hereby  appointed 
a  committee,  with  full  power,  to  arrange  and  settle  all  pecuni- 
ary obligations  against  the  vestry,  with  any  means  belonging 
thereto  at  their  disposal :  with  a  view  to  restore  the  church 
edifice,  lots,  and  appurtenances  as  received,  to  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bp. 
Eastburn,  in  a  legal  manner." 

With  high  consideration,  we  are  gentlemen. 

Very  respectfully  your  ob't  sevants, 

PHILIP  REYNOLDS,  ?  ^ 
JOSIAH  RHODES,      \  ^^^rdens. 
DANL.  BURTNETT, 
GEORGE  JEFFERDS, 
WM.  H.  PHELPS, 
EWD.  H.  MERCER,     i  „  , 
MARTIN  T.  BUNN,      '  ^^^^''^/'^ew. 
MOSES  DEVOE, 
JOHN  BOGERT, 
THOMAS  BELL, 


EXHIBIT  J, 


No.  1, 

Churcli  edifice. 

No.  2, 

No. 

Ely's. 

Dodd"*. 

T  t\  4\                 /-v»-»  iTTi  ^  Or 

420  000 

ft  16.000 

No.  3, 

Church  edifice. 

No.  4, 

  21.2x82.0 

120,000  • 

$i6;Ooa 

  28.10x82.0 

30,000 

21,30a 

,  24.9x82.0 

22,ooa 

i9,ooa 

25x82.0 

22,000 

19,500 

25x82.0 

27,000 

19,500 

OK     O-crOI  fi 

10,VUl/ 

  27.1x101.4 

27,000 

19,000 

  24.9x101.0 

OO  AAA 

OA  AAA 

No.  5, 

oO,uiru 

<i(\  AAfV 

25x74 

35,000 

30,000 

25x74 

35,000 

30,000 

No.  6, 

25x200 

25,000 

18,000 

25x100 

24,000 

19,000 

25x75 

20,000 

18,000 

24x75 

20,000 

17,500 

25x75 

18,000 

16,000 

25x75 

18,000 

16,000 

ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


39 


No.  7, 


v/  -4/  A.  c/  V/ 

$50  000 

^35  000 

140  do 

22x50 

17,500 

15  000 

l^'V                     ilU                     •  •  •  • 

1  Q  000 

17,000 

1 4ft  cln 

X                                KIKJ                         •  •  •  • 

25x75 

25  000 

18  000 

Kxyj                    •  •  •  • 

25x75 

27,000 

18.000 

1  tJO                       ClU                       •  •  •  • 

25x75 

25  000 

17,000 

1    1                  u.^                 •  •  •  • 

25x75 

24,000 

17  000 

1  fSQ  rln 

25x75 

24  000 

17,000 

1  fil  rln 

25x75 

23  500 

17,000 

1 63  do 

25x75 

23,500 

17,000 

M  *  %J  \Jk  X        1-1.  V\  x\J  LL   OLXV/v/v^        •  •  •  • 

25x65 

18,000 

14,000 

275  tn  ''fil  rln 

75x90 

60  000 

50  000 

firt  8 

WJ  •!  T 7* O n  G'f'I^OA^ 

Q7  KOO 

OQ  000 

07  KOO 

9'i  000 

44  flo 

25x1 00 

35  000 

9«  000 

5fi  dn 

25x1 00 

^0  000 

9S  000 

112  CTiamKpi'^-stT'ppt 

25x75 

30  000 

28  000 

114  do   

25x75 

30.000 

28  000 

89  Reade  street,      . . 

25x62 

18,000 

1  a  000 

No.  9, 

25.1x105 

100,000 

115,000 

252  do   

25  2x106 

80  000 

90  000 

256  do 

75  1x107 

80  000 

QO  000 

5j  7  &  9  Murray-street,  . , 

14  11x100 

1  50  000 

1  50  000 

10  W^arreu-street,    , . 

25x100 

45  000 

48  000 

18  &  20  do   

25x100 

85  000 

QO  000 

30  do 

25x100 

40  000 

45  000 

69  Reade-street,     ...  . . 

25x75 

40  000 

45  000 

71  do 

25x75 

17,000 

1  fi  000 

No.  10, 

1  5f?  T?padp-strpft 

25x40  9 

7  fiOO 

7  ^00 

104.  T?pa  rl  p-^trp.pt 

90  000 

90  onn 

106  do   

.  22.6x83 

19,000 

19,000 

108  do   

.  26x83 

20,000 

20,000 

110  do   

.  25x83 

20,000 

20,000 

40 


BEPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


No.  12, 


60  Reade-street, 

....  25x83 

$30,000 

$30,000 

74  do 

....  25x83 

25,000 

25,000 

No,  13, 

6,000 

7,000 

Nn    1 4. 

oo8  Greenwicn-st., . . . , 

6,000 

7,000 

o72  do 

8,000 

10,000 

374  do 

7,000 

8,000 

376  do 

*  6,500 

378  do 

  41 .11x27.10  ( 

9,000 

380  do 

4,000 

6,000 

382  do 

....  25.5x100 

8,000 

10,000 

384  do 

....  25x91 

8,000 

9,500 

l\0,  lOj 

oo          1  f\f\ 

9,000 

10,000 

a7Q  rlr. 

7,000 

8,000 

3&1  do 

OK■v^  HA 

8,000 

y,ooo 

28S  do 

o,uuu 

a  f\(\f\ 
UjUUU 

387  do 

9,fiTr1  on 

y,uuu 

389  do 

25x100 

8,000 

9,000 

391  do 

....  25x100 

8,000 

9,000 

393  do 

,  26x100 

8,000 

9,000 

397  do 

,,  24.10x100 

12,000 

12,000 

No.  16, 

18,000 

15,000 

415  fJ-repn  wif/Ti-st 

25x55  0 

5  500 

4151  Af. 

1  71-if  fSfi 

i>,UUU 

J.17  c\rt 

o,uuu 

419  do 

14x70  7 

4,000 

4  5nn 

421  fin 

1  Fl  ^lYfS4  10 

9  nno 

^' jvuu 

423  do 

425  do 

25x58  (4  ^OO^i 

4,500 

427  do 

, .  25x68 

6,500 

6,750 

10  Hubert-st.,  

25x88 

6,500 

5,500 

5,000 

5,500 

ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH.  41 

No.  18. 


173  Hudson-st.,   23x100  $9,000  $9,000 

175          do    23.3x100  9,000  9,000 

177  &  179  do    33x70  10,000  10,000 

181          do     •   22.1x99.8  9,000  9,500 

183          do    22.1x99.8  7,500  8,000 

185           do    21.11x99.8  7,500  8,000 

187'        do    23.11x99.8  7,500  8,250 

189          do    20.2x75  6,000  6,500 

191          do    25.5x74  7,000  7,500 

193          do    25.5x74.3  7,000  7,500 

54Laight-st.,   20.9x74  4,000  4,500 

56       do    20.11x79  4,000  4,500 

58       do    24.5x80  4,500  5,000 

60       do    25.2x85  5,000  5,500 

31  Vestry-st.,   25x107  5,500  6,000 

33  do    29.7x100  6,000  6,000 

35  do    22x100  5,000  5  000 

37  do"    20.6x96  4,750  4,750 

39  do    21.5x94  4,750  4,750 

41-45  do    62.9x86  church 

32  do    25.7x104  5,500  6,000 

34  do      ;   25.1x90.8  5,000  5,500 

36  do    24.10x90  5,000  5,250 

38  do    25.1x89  5,000  5,000 

40  do    25.3x88.6  5,000  5,250 

42       do    25.1x88  5,000  5,500 

,   3Desbrosses-st.,   26.6x88  5,000  5,500 

5          do    25.2x78.8  4,500  5,000 

7          do    25.2x99.10  4,500  5,000 

9          do    24.10x99.6  4,500  5,000 

11          do    25x91  4,500  5,000 

13          do    24.10x91.4  4,500  5,000 

15          do    25x91.8  4,500  5,000 

17          do    24x50  2,500  3,000 

19          do    15.1x50  1,750  1,950 

429  Greenwich-st.,   23x100  10,000  10,000 

431          do    25.6x100.8  7,500  8,000 


42 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE. 


433  Greenwich  St.,   26.4x100  7,500  6,000 

435        do    25x101  7,500  8,000 

437         do    21.7x59.9  4,000  4,500 

439        do    28.11x59.8  5,000  5,500 

441         do    23.3x59.8  6,000  6.500 

443        do    26x100  7,000  7,500 

445         do    26x100  7,000  7,500 

447         do    24.7x100  7,000  7,500 

449        do   25.8x100  7,000  7,500 

451         do    25x100  7,000  7,500 

453        do    25x64.2  4,000  5,000 

455        do    25.8x58.9  6,000  6,500 

No.  19. 

4  Desbrosses-st.,   24.2x90.8  5,000  6,500 

6        do    25.6x89.3  5,000  5,750 

8  .      do    25.1x88.6  5,000  5,000 

10         do    25.2x87.9  5,000  5,000 

16         do    30x52.3  4,000  4,500 

18        do    25.3x52.3  3,500  4,000 

20        do    29x51.5  4,000  4,500 

457  Greenwich-st.,   25.6x50  5,500  6,000 

459        do    25.6x50.2  4,000  '  4,500 

463         do    24x103  7,000  7,000 

465        do    20.6x75  5,000  5,000 

467        do    30x75.6  6,500  6,500 

205  Hudson-street,   21.11x66.3  6,000  8,000 

207        do    21.4x661  5,000  6,000 

209        do    21.10x65.10  5,500  6,500 

211         do    22.1x«4.1  7,000  8,000 

484  Canal-st.  ave.,   51x120  30,000  30,000 

61  Watts-street,    19.11x94.3  7,000  7,000 

63        do    20x94.3  7,000  7,000 

65        do    55.2x87.3  7,000  7,000 

67        do    21.9x75  5,000  5,500 

69        do    13x51  1,500  1,500 

71         do    24.10x74  4,000  5,000 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH.  43 

No.  20. 

182  Hudson  street,                 20x60  6,000  6,500 

186         do    19.5x64  5,000  5,000 

190         do    20x70  5,500  5,500 

194         do                           20x70  5,500  5,500 

196         do                           20x65  5,500  5,500 

198         do    19.9x53  5,000  5,000 

200         do    20.3x40  4,000  4,000 

202         do    20x28  3,500  3,500 

204  Canal  street,   41x42  triangle,  8,000  9,000 

464         do    2  .11x23.8  4,000  4,500 

462         do    20.5x40  4,500  4,750 

460         do    12x47  2,500  3,000 

458         do    12x50  3,000  3,250 

456         do   12x55  3,500  3,500 

454         do    21.4x60  5,500  5,500 

452         do    21.4x97  7,000  8,000 

450         do    21.4x100  9,000  9,000 

444         do    23.2x90  9,000  8,500 

442-440   do    51.8x58  6  12,000  13,300 

438         do  (through 

to  Vestry)   25x65  10,000  10,000 

No.  21. 

28  Renwick-st.,   21x60  3,500  3,000 

34  do    25x83.6  4,500  4,500 

36       do    25x60  4,000  3,750 

40       do    24.10x60  4,000  3,750 

42       do    25.3x60  4,000  4,000 

283  Hudson-st.,   25x90  8,500  9,000 

285       do    25x90  8,500  9,000 

No.  22. 

83  Varick-st.,   25x86  5,000  5,500 

85       do    25x100  5,000  5,500 

89       do    25x100  5,000  5,500 

91       do    25x100  5,000  5,750 

93       do    24.10x53  4,500  4,500 

35  Watts-st.,   25.1x107  4,500  5,000 


44 


REPORT  OF  SFXECT  COMMITTEE 


37  Watts- St.,  

25.1x89 

4,000 

4,500 

39 

25x80 

3,750 

4,000 

41 

25x80 

3,750 

4,000 

43 

do   

18.7x60.8 

2,500 

2,800 

45 

do   

18x60 

2,500 

2,800 

47 

20x60 

2,750 

3,000 

A  Q 

An 

20x55 

2,750 

2,800 

51 

do   

20x48 

2,500 

3,000 

53 

do   

20x42 

2,500 

3,000 

55 

do   

20x35 

2,500 

^  flflO 

^  \J\J\J 

485 
483 
581 

1  Canal,  Watts  and  Hud- 
j  son-streets,  

28.8x43 

8,000 

8,000 

479  Canal  (&  Watts)  streets 

201x60 

8,000 

8,000 

477 

do   

20.1x33 

3,500 

3,500 

475 

do   

24.7x40 

4,500 

4,000 

473 

do   

17.7x46 

4,000 

3,800 

471 

do   

17.8x53 

4,000 

4,000 

469 

do   

20x57 

5,000 

4,500 

467 

do   

25.4x73 

8,000 

8,000 

465-463do   

25.10x100 

8,500 

8,300 

461 

do  

22.10x87 

8,000 

9,000 

459 

do   

17.10x100 

7,000 

8,000 

457 

do   

17.10x100 

7,700 

8,000 

455 

17.10x100 

7,500 

8,000 

453 

do   

17.10x100 

7,500 

8,000 

451 

do   

17.11x88 

7,000 

6,500 

449 

do   

17.11x80 

7,500 

6,250 

447 

do   

17.10x75 
No.  23, 

6,000 

6,250 

417CaHal-st  

419  do   

25.10x76  I 
26.4x72  \ 

25,000 

25,000 

421 

do   

25.2x82.6 

10,000 

13,000 

21.2x38  J  iii-^luded  in 
(  Canal-st. 

162  &  164. 

8 

do   

25x71 

4,000 

4,000 

10 

do   

25x81 .8 

4,000 

4,000 

15  Grand-st.,.  

50x100 

9,000 

10,000 

ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


45 


S.  E.  corner  of  Grand  and 


Varick-st.,   86x93.6  $32,000  $32,000 

80  Varick  (cor.  Grand-st.)  25x75  7,500  7,500 

82     do   •. ...  25x75  5,000  5,000 

84     do    25x75  5,000  5,000 

86     do    24x69  4,500  4,500 

88     do    22x57  4,500  4,500 

90      do    25x50  5,000  4,000 

92     do     col  Watts,   25x50  5,000  5,000 

539  Broome-st.,   25x85  5,000  5,000 

541        do    25x85  5,000  5,000 

543       do    25x85  5,000  5,000 

545       do    25x85  5,000  5,000 

547       do    25x85  5,000  5,000 

No.  24. 

119  Varick-st.,   25x90  6,000  6,000 

121       do    25x90  6,000  6,000 

123       do      c.  Domiuick,.  25x56.8  5,500  5,500 

125       do    26x54.8  5,500  5,500 

127       do    24x54.8  3,500  3,500 

129       do    25x76.8  5,500  4,500 

No.  25. 

540  Broome  c.  Clark,   25x48.2  4,000  3,500 

5  Clark  St.,   24.2x75.9  4,000  3,500 

7  do    24x75.3  4,000  3,000 

9       do   ,..  24x75.3  4,000  3,000 

21       do      c.  Dominick,.  24.6x56.10  4,000  3,500 

23       do    25x56.10  3,000  3,000 

25       do    25x75  4,000  4,000 

8  Dominick-st.,   25x84.7  4,000  3,000 

10  do    25x84.7  4,000  3,000 

12       do    25x84.6  4,000  3,000 

14       do    25.3x84.6  4,000  3,500 

5       do    24.10x74.10  4,000  3,500 

7       do    24.11x74.10  4,000  3,000 

9  do    24.11x74x10  4,000  3,000 

11  do         '.   25.2x74.10  4,000  3,000 


46  REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE. 


ZD  .  OX  i-t . 

1  C\ 
.  1 1' 

AO  AAA 
!lpO,UUU 

24.2x99. 

6 

6,000 

6,000 

116 

do   

24.2x99. 

6 

6,000 

6,000 

120 

do   

24x48 

5,500 

4,000 

No.  26. 

25  5x78 . 

,  5 

3,500 

C  C\C\f\ 

5,000 

538 

do  C.Clark,... 

24 .6x65 

4,500 

5,000 

6  Clark-st.,  

22 . 6x68 

3,000 

4,000 

16 

do   

25x90 

4,500 

4,500 

18 

do   

25x90 

4,500 

4,500 

22 

do   

25x90 

4,500 

A    K  A  A 

4,500 

24 

do   

r\  K  f\r\ 

25x90 

4,500 

5,000 

26 

do  

202  Sp: 

fing-st.,  c.  Clark, . . . . 

22x75 

6,000 

5,500 

200 

23.2x75 

5,000 

5,750 

198 

do   

22.5x75 

5,000 

5,000 

No.  28. 

303  Hudson,  n.  w.  c.  Spring, 

25 .8x50 . 

2 

C    K  A  A 

5,500 

6,000 

305 

do   

20 .dxoO 

3,000 

4,500 

307 

do   

20 .3x50 

3,000 

4,000 

309 

do   

20 . dx50 

3,000 

4,000 

311 

do   

20 .3x50 

35UOO 

4,000 

OA  A-.T-O'fC 

20 . 9x70 

A  e  A  A 

450UU 

e  AAA 

0,000 

315 

do   

OA  Ck-v-nK 

2u .  yx  /  0 

45DUU 

o,uuu 

317 

do   

OA  Axr'7Fi 

20 . 9x70 

E  A^'lA 

OjUOO 

319* 

do   

20.9x75 

4,0UU 

321 

do  s.w.cr.Vandam, 

24.9x75 

ry  AAA 
75OUU 

n  AAA 

o,ouy 

323 

do    n.w.  do 

32x25 

0  AAA 

3,000 

0  AAA 

3,000 

325 

do   

17.11x25 

T    KA  A 

1,500 

1    e  A  A 

1,500 

327 

do   

16.8x50 

0   K  A  A 

2,500 

r\   K  A  A 

2,500 

329 

do   

16.8x50 

2,500 

0  K  A  A 

2,500 

331 

do   

16.8x50 

2,500 

C\  f\f\f\ 

2,000 

333 

do   

25x100 

ft  AAA 

D,UUU 

o,ouu 

335 

do   

22.5x50 

3,250 

3,500 

337 

do   

21x50 

3,250 

3,500 

339 

34x50 

6,000 

5,500 

•These  two  lots  inolude  No.  80  Vandam-st. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHuaCH. 


47 


267  Spring-st.,    25x100 

269  do    25x100 

271  do    21.10x100 

275  do    25.2x100 

277  do    25.2x100 

279  do    25x100 

281  do    25x100 

283  do    25x75 

285  do    25x50 

315  do    24x25 

317  do  n.e. C.Greenwich,  26x25 

82  Vandam-st.,    20.10x113 

84  do    22x113 

86  do    25x113 

88  do    25x173 

90  do    25x113 

92  do    25x113 

94  do    24.10x113 

96  do    21.8x38.6 

98  do    16x38.6 

81  do    25.1x50 

90  Char  1  ton ,s.w.c.Hudson-st.,  50x36.6 

94  do    25x75 

96  do    24.10x75 

517  Green wich-st.,   25x50 

519  do    25x75 

521  do    25x100 

523  do    25x100 

525  do    25x100 

527  do    25x98 

529  do    19.3x61.6 

531  do  s.  e.  c.  Vandam,  19.6x61.6 

539  do  n.  e.  c.    do  25  2x51 

541  do    25.2x99.9 

643  do    25x99.9 

547  do    15x100 

549  do    15x100 

551  do    20x100 


$7,500  i 

17,500 

6,000 

7,000 

6,000 

6,000 

6,000 

6,000 

6,000 

6,000 

6,000 

6,000 

6,000 

6,500 

5,000 

6,000 

4,000 

5,500 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

4,000 

5,000 

5,000 

5,500 

5,000 

5,500 

5,000 

5,500 

5,000 

5,500 

2,000 

5,500 

5,000 

5,500 

5,"iOO 

1,759 

2,000 

1,200 

1,500 

3,000 

4,000 

36  3  39  Hudson. 

5,000 

6,000 

5,000 

5,500 

4,000 

4,500 

5,000 

5,000 

6,000 

5,500 

6,000 

5,500 

6,000 

5,500 

6,000 

5,500 

3,000 

4,500 

4,000 

6,000 

5,500 

6,000 

6,000 

6,000 

6,000 

5,500 

3,000 

3,750 

3,000 

4,750 

4,500 

4,500 

48 


REPORT  OV  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


553  Greenwich-st.,   25x75 

555  do    25x75 

No.  29. 

141  Varick-st  ,   20x50 

143      do    19x50 

145      do   20.6x50 

147      do    19.6x50 

149      do    23x50 

163-163  do    25x75 

231  Spring-st.,  cor.  Varick,  25x50 

239       do   55x51 

235       do    25x114 

237       do    25.2x114 

239       do    25.2x114 

241       do    25x114 

245       do    25.1x114 

247  Spring-street,   25.3x114 

249       do    25x114 

251       do    25x114 

253       do    25x114 

255       do    25x114 

259       do    25x50 

261       do  n.  6.  cr.  Hudson,  25x50 

44  Vandam-st.s.w.cr. Varick  25x51 .4 

46       do    25x51 

48       do    25x100 

50       do    25x100 

52       do    25x100 

54       do    25x100 

56       do    25x100 

58       do    25x100 

60       do    25x100 

72       do    25x100 

64       do    25x100 

66       do    25x100 

68       do    25x100 

70       do-    25x100 


$5,000 
6,000 


2,500 
2,400 
2,500 
2,400 
2,700 
5,000 
5,000 
3,000 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
4,000 
6,000 
4,000 
2,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
5,000 
6,000 


$5,500 
7,000 


3,000 
2,750 
2,500 
2,500 
2,750 
4,500 
6,000 
4,500 
7,000 
7,000 
7,000 
7,000 
7,000 
7,000 
7,000 
7,000 
7,000 
7,000 
4,500 
6,000 
4,000 
3,500 
5,500 
5,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
5,000 
5,500 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


49 


51  Vandam  St.,   25x100  |4,500  $5,000 

53  do    25x100  4,500  4,500 

55       do    25x100  4,500  4,500 

57  do    25x100  4,50o  4,500 

59  do    25x100  4,500  4,500 

61  do    25x100  4,500  4,500 

63  do    24.10x100  4,500  4,500 

65  do    26x100  4,500  4,500 

67  do    20.6x100  3,750  3,750 

69  do    29.8x100  5,000  4,500 

71  .   do    25x100  6,000  5,500 

73  do    25x70  5,000  5,500 

75  d?    25x70  6,000  6,500 

62  Charlton  st.,   25x75  3,500  4,000 

64  do    25x100  4,500  5,000 

66  do    25x100  4,500  5,000 

68  do    25x100  4,500  5,000 

70  do    25x100  4,500  5,000 

72  do    25x100  4,500  5,000 

74  do    25x100  4,500  5,000 

76  do   25x100  4,500  5,000 

78  do    25x100  4,500  5,000 

80  do    25x100  4,500  5,000 

82  do    25x100  4,500  5,000 

84  do    24.7x100  5,500  5,500 

86  do    25x100  6,000  6,500 

308  Hudson  St.,   17x50  2,500  2,750 

310  do    17x50  2,500  2,750 

311  do    17x50  2,500  2,750 

314  do    29.8x50  4,000  4,000 

316  do    28x50  4,000  4,000 

318  do    28x50  4,000  4,250 

320  do  cor.  Vandam  St.,  29x50  6,000  6,000 

328  do    20.6x24.2  3,000  6,500 

330  do    25.3x24  2,000 

332  do    24.3x24  1,500 

334  do    30.4x75.5  6,000  5,500 

338  do    25.50.5  4,000  3,750 

4 


5a 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE. 


25.3x50.5 

$4,000 

13,750 

342 

do 

4,05sU 

4,UUO 

344 

do 

cor.  Charlton. St. 

,  25.3x37.7 

5,500 

5,500 

No.  30. 

223  Sp: 

I'ing,  cr.Macdougal-sf . 

42x100 

9,000 

11,000 

225 

do 

20x100 

4,500 

5,000' 

7 

227 

do 

20x100 

4,50a 

5,ooa 

229 

do 

20x100 

4,500 

4,800 

231 

do 

20x100 

4,500 

4,80a 

233 

do 

20x100 

4,500 

4,800 

235 

do 

20x100 

4,500 

4,80a 

237 

do 

20x100 

4,500 

4,800 

239 

do 

25x100 

6,000 

6,000 

241 

do 

20x105 

4,500 

4,800 

243 

do 

20x100 

4,500 

4,800 

245. 

do 

25x100 

6,000 

6,000 

247 

do 

25x100 

6,000 

6,000 

249 

do 

25x105 

6,000 

6,000 

251 

do 

25x99.5 

6,000 

J 

6,000 

253 

do 

25x99.5 

6,000 

6,000 

255 

do 

16x9x58.2 

2,000 

3,000 

257 

do 

21x58.2 

2,500 

3,500 

259  n.w.cr.  Varick-st.y  .... 

21x58.10 

4,000 

5,500 

18x100 

2,500 

2,500 

8 

do 

15x100 

2,700 

2,700 

10 

do 

25x100 

4,500 

4,250 

12 

do 

23x100 

4,250 

4,000 

14 

do 

22.10x100 

4,250 

4,000 

16 

do 

22.10x100 

4,250 

4,000 

do 

23x100 

4,250 

4,000 

20 

do 

23x100 

4,250 

4,000 

2-2 

do 

23x100 

4,250 

4,000 

24 

do 

24.6x150 

4,500 

4,250 

26 

do 

28.100 

5,000 

5,000 

28 

do 

21.4x100 

4,000 

4,000 

30 

do 

25.8x100 

4,500 

4,500 

32 

do 

24.10x100 

4,500 

4,500 

'ON  APFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


51 


S4  Vandam-st.,   25x100 

36  do    25.6x100 

38  do   ,  22x100 

40  do    20x49.6 

7  do    17x100 

9  do    25x100 

11  do    25x100 

13  do    25x100 

15  do    25x100 

17  do    22x100 

19  do    28x100 

21  do   25x100 

23  do    19.8x100 

25  do    20x100 

27  do    20x100 

29  do    20x100 

31  do    20x100 

33  do    25x100 

35  do    25x100 

37  do    18.6x75 

39  do    18.10x75 

41  do    18.10x75 

»43  do  .........  18.10x74 

45  do  cr.  Varick,  25x75 

16  Charlton-st.,   18.2x100 

18  do    18.9x100 

20  do    18.9x100 

22  do    18.9x100 

24  do    18,9x100 

26  do    25x100 

28  do    25x100 

140  Varick-st.,    16.5x64 

142  do    21.8x64 

142^  &  144    29x64 

146  do    19x64 

148  do    20x64 

150  do    16.6x43 


•  This  No.  includes  160  Varick-street. 


$4,500 

$4,500 

4,500 

4,500 

4,250 

4,000 

2,500 

2,500 

3,000 

3,000 

4,500 

4,000 

4,500 

4,000 

4,500 

4,000 

4,500 

4,000 

4,255 

3,750 

5,000 

4,250 

4,500 

4,000 

4,000 

3,500 

4,000 

3,500 

4,000 

3,500 

4,000 

3,500 

4,000 

3,500 

4,500 

4,250 

4,500 

4,250 

3,000 

3,000 

3,000 

3,250 

3,000 

3,250 

3,000 

3,250 

5,500 

5,500 

3,000  • 

3,500 

3,000 

3,500 

3,000 

3,500 

3,000 

3,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,500 

6,250 

4,500 

5,250 

3,000 

3,000 

3,000 

'  3,000 

5,500 

4 , 500 

3,250 

3,000 

3,550 

3,250 

1,500 

2,000 

53  REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE. 

152  Varick-st.,   16.6x43  $1,500  $2,000 

154       do       c.Vandam-st.  16.6x43  2,000  3,000 

162       do    24.7x100  5,000  5,000 

164       do    20x100  4,400  4,000 

166       do    20x66  3,500  3,500 

168       do    20x66  3,500  3,900 

170       do    20x66  3,500  3,500 

172       do        C.Charlton,  20x66  4,500  4,500 

No.  31. 

345  Hudson-st.,   20.8x50  3,000  4,000 

347       do    20.9.v50  3,000  4,000 

349       do    20x50  3,000  4,000 

351       do    25x100  7,000  7,000 

353  &  355    25x100  7,000  7,000 

357       do    16.8x60  2,500  3,500 

359       do    16.8x61  2,500  3,500 

361       do        s.w.c.King,  16.8x61  4,000  4,500 

365       do    16.8x60  2,500  3  500 

367       do    16.8x60  2,500  3,500 

369       do    16.8x60  2,500  3,500 

371  &  373    25x100  6,500  6,500 

375       do    16.6x60  2,500  3,500 

377       do        .;   17x60  2,500  3,500 

379       do    17x60  2,500  3,500 

381       do    17x60  2,500  4,000 

383       do    17x60  2,500  4,000 

385  H  dson,  s.  w.  c.  Ham- 

mersly,   23x38.6  4,500  4,500 

91  Charlton,  n.  w.  c.  Hud- 
son-st...... 23x36.5  4,500  4,500 

93       do    27.3x38.6  3,000  3,000 

85       do    25.2x100  5,000  8,000 

97       do    24.9x100  5,000  6,000 

99       do    24.10x100  5,000  5,500 

101       do    22x100  4,500  5,000 

103       do    24.9x100  5,000  5,500 

105       do    25x100  5,000  5,500 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


53 


107  Charlton-st.,   25x100  $5,000  $5,000 

109  do    25x100  5,000  5,500 

111  do    27x100  5,250  7,500 

96  King-street,   16.9x50  2,000  3,000 

98  do    19x50  2,000  3,000 

100  do    25x100  5,000  3,000 

102  do    25x100  5,000  5,000 

104  do    25x100  5,000  5,000 

106  do    25x100  5,000  5,000 

108  do    25x100  5,000  5,000 

110  do    25x100  5,000  5,000 

112&114  do  see  571  Greenwich-st. 

97  do    19x100  3,000  4,000 

99  do    19.3x100  3,000  3,750 

101  do    19.3x100  3,000  3,750 

103  do    19.3x100  3,000  3,750 

105  do    19.8x100  3,000  3,750 

107  do    25x100  5,000  5,000 

109  do    25x100  5,000  5,000 

111  &  113  do  see  572  Greenwich-st. 

90^&90AHafnmersly-st.,..  40x100  8,000  8,000 

92  do  ..  18x100  3,500  3,500 

M  do  ..  18x100  3,500  3,500 

96  do  ..  18x100  .3,500  3,500 

98  do  •  ..  18x100  3,500  3,500 
100  do  18x100  3,500  3,500 

102  do  ..  18x100  3,500  3,500 

104  do  ..  18x100  3,500  3,500 

106  do  ..  19x100  3,500  3,750 

108  do  see  586  Greenwich-st. 

557  Greenwich  c.  Charlton,  25x73  6,000  6,500 

561  do    28.6x73  5,000  5,500 

563  do    24.6x73  4,500  5,000 

565  do    24.10x99.9  5,000  5,500 

569  do    25.2x99.9  5,000  5,500 

572  do  C.Kings,....  24.10x99.9  7,000  7,000 

573  do    13.9x100 'i 

573A  do    18x100  )>      12,000  12,000 

575"  do                              18x100  ) 


54 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE. 


zoxlOO 

$5,000 

$5,500 

5,000 

5,500 

58a 

do   

25x100 

5,000 

5,500 

585 

do   

25x100 

5,000 

5,500 

587 

do      c.  Hammers- 

25x100 

7,000 

7,000 

No.  32. 

"171 
111 

va,iicJi  c.  vyxiaritoii, ,  , , 

O  1  xr'7K 

6,000 

5,500 

17^4 

JL  1  O 

1  Q  O-^rjK 
io . OX70 

4,500 

4,000 

1/9 

17  .oX7D 

4,000 

4,000 

1  77 

flrv 

io . DXlUU 

4,250 

4,250 

1  7Q 
1  IV 

4,500 

4,500 

lOl 

CIO            1  A  A 

5,250 

5,250 

1  oo 

fin 

Oi*    K-,  1  n  A 

>iu ,  DXIUU 

5,000 

5,000 

loo 

O  0-T7-  A 

ZoXoU 

4,000 

4,000 

1  Q7 

lot 

do       s.  w.  c.  King, 

oo-w^;  A 

zzxoU 

5,000 

5,000 

lot) 

do       s.  w.  c.  do . . 

iao  .4xoy 

5,250 

5,250 

It)  I 

An 

24 .8x59 

3,500 

3,500 

1  no 

24 . 9x60 

3,500 

3,500 

It^u 

An 

!4  /  .  /XbU 

4,000 

3,750 

1  07 

r\r, 

-iOXDU 

3,250 

do 

>&OXOt> 

o  AAA 

3,000 

201 

Q  AAA 

3,000 

203 

do   

1  iXOa 

IiJ,7D0 

2,750 

205 

do    c.  Hammersly,, 

1  /XOd 

4,000 

4,000 

ZOXIUO 

5,000 

5,500 

69 

Ofiir  T  rtfk 

ZOXlUl/ 

&,OU(l 

5,500 

71 

do   

FiAA 

0,DUU 

5,500 

73 

do   

^OXlUu 

0,OUU 

5,500 

75 

do   

laoxiuu 

5,500 

5,500 

77 

do   

O  Pv-^  1  A  A, 

K  KAA 
5,500 

5,500 

79 

do   

ZOXIUU 

KAA 

5,000 

K   K  A  A 

81 

do   

OF^xT-l  A  A 

kaa 
5,500 

5,500 

83 

do   

4,500 

5,500 

85 

do   

A  Ann 

4,UUU 

87 

do   

25x64 

5,000 

4,000 

89 

do         c.  Hudson, 

23.6x36 

5,000 

5,000 

ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


55 


«8 

$1,750 

$1,750 

70 

do   

,  20x60 

1,500 

1,500 

72 

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

74 

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

76 

. . .  25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

78 

,  25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

80 

25x100 

5,000 

5,0J9O 

S2 

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

84 

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

86 

26x100 

5,000 

5,000 

88 

20x50 

2,000 

2,000 

90 

do   

20x59 

2,500 

2,500 

69 

49x100 

10,000 

9,000 

71 

do   

25x100 

5,000 

4,000 

73 

25x100 

5,000 

4,000 

79 

25x100 

5,000 

4,000 

81 

25.3x100 

5,000 

4,000 

83 

do   

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

85 

do   

25x100 

5,250 

5,000 

.87 

,  ,  .  25x50 

3,000 

2,500 

u«9 

3,000 

3,000 

, ,  21x100 

4,000 

4,000 

€8 

do 

  21x100 

4,000 

4,000 

70 

do 

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

72 

do 

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

74 

do 

20x100 

4,000 

4,000 

76 

do 

,  20x100 

4,000 

4,000 

78 

,  . . ,  20x100 

4,000 

4,000 

80 

do 

,  20x100 

4,000 

4,000 

82 

do 

25.6x100 

5,000 

5,000 

84 

do 

, .  25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

86 

do 

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

88 

do 

32x50 

4,000 

5,000 

.   ,,.  25.6x25.9 

2,000 

2,000 

248 

do 

14x75 

3,000 

3,000 

354 

do 

,  26x100 

6,000 

6,500 

356 

do 

6,000 

6,500 

358 

do 

6,000 

6,500 

56 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


360 

Hudson-st. 

^3,000 

$3,5oa 

362 

do 

3,250 

3,500 

364 

do 

cor.  King,   16.8x60 

4,500 

4,250 

366 

do 

4,000 

4,000 

368 

do 

3,000 

3,000 

370 

do 

3,000 

3,000 

372 

do 

  25x100 

6,000 

6,500 

374 

do 

6,000 

6,500 

376 

do 

  16.8x100 

3,750 

3,750 

378 

do 

  16.8x100 

3,750 

3,750 

380 

do 

  16.8x100 

3,750 

3,750 

382 

do 

25x68 

384 

do 

cr.Hammersly  25x68 

7,000 

7,000 

No  33. 

15  Charlton-st 

,   23.4x100 

5,000 

4,750 

17 

do 

  23.4x100 

5,000 

4,750 

19 

do 

5,000 

4,750 

21 

do 

5,000 

4,750 

25 

do 

5,500 

5,500 

27 

do 

  20x100 

4,000 

4,200 

29 

do 

4,000 

4,200 

31 

do 

  20.2x100 

4,000 

4,200 

33 

do 

4,000 

4,200 

35 

do 

4,000 

4,200 

37 

do 

5,500 

5,500 

39 

do 

  25x100 

5,500 

5,500 

41 

do 

4,250 

4,300 

43 

do 

  21.6x100 

4,250 

4,300 

45 

do 

4,25o 

4,300 

47 

do. 

4,250 

4,300 

49 

do 

4,250 

4,300 

51 

do 

3,750 

3,750 

53 

do 

4,000 

4,000 

55 

do 

cr.  Varick,. . .  25x37 

3,600 

3,500 

28  King- street, 

  22x100 

4,000 

4,000 

30 

do 

  22.10x100 

4,000 

4,000 

32 

do 

  25x100 

4,500 

4,500 

ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRIKITV  CHURCH.  57 

34  King-street,   25x100  $4,500  $4,500 

36  do    20x100  3,500  3,500. 

38  do        ^   20x100  3,500  3,500 

40  do    20x100  3,500  3,500 

42  do    20x100  3,500  3,500 

44  do    20x100  3,500  3,500 

46  do    25x100  4,500  4,500 

48  do    25x100  4,500  4,500 

50  do    25x100  4,500  4,500 

52  do    20.10x100  3,500  3,500 

54  do    20.10x100  2,500  3,500 

56  do    20.10x100  3,500  3,500 

58  do    20.10x100  3,500  3,500 

60  do    20.10x100  3,500  3,500 

62  do    20.10x75  3,000  3,000 

64  do    25x75  4,000  4,000 

27  do    25.4x100  4,500  4,500 

29  do    28.6x100  5,000  5,000 

31  do    21.6x100  3,500  3,500 

33  do    23x100  4,000  -1,000 

35  do    27.6x100  5,000  5,000 

37  do    27x100  5,000  5,000 

39  do    23.6x100  4,000  4,000 

41  do    23.6x100  4,000  4,000 

43  do    25x100  4,500  4,500 

45  do    25x100  4,500  4,500 

47  do    25x100  4,500  4,500 

49  do    25x100  4,500  4,500 

51  do    24.10x100  4,500  4,500 

53  do    25x100  4,500  4,500 

55  do    25x75  4,500  .  4,500 

28  Hammersly  street,   21.9x100  4,500  4,000 

30  do   25x100  5,000  4,000 

32  do    18.9x100  3,750  3,750 

34  do    18.9x100  3,750  3,750 

36  do    18.9x100  3,750  3,750 

36|     do    18.9x100  3,750  3,750 

38  do    24.10x100  5,000  5,000 


58  REPORT  OF    SELECT  COMMITTEE. 


40  Hammersly-street,  

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

42 

do 

,25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

44 

do 

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

46 

do 

20x100 

4,000 

4,000 

48 

do 

20x100 

4,000 

4,000 

50 

do 

20x100 

4,000 

4,000 

52 

do 

20x100 

4,000 

4,000 

54 

do 

20x100 

4,000 

4,000 

56 

do   

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

58 

do 

25.8x100 

5,000 

5,000 

60 

do 

20x58 

3,000 

3,000 

176  Varick-street,  

38x25 

2,000 

2,000 

1  no  fir  1  on 

An 

25x68 

3,500 

3,500 

182 

do   

25x75 

3,750 

3,750 

184 

do   

30.4x25 

1,700 

1,700 

186 

do  c.  King,- .... 

44.6x25 

3,750 

3,750 

190 

do   

16.5x50.0 

3,000 

2,500 

192 

19.6x50.5 

2,250 

2,250 

192^ 

19.7x50.5 

2,000 

2,000 

192^ 

19.5x50 

2,000 

2,000 

194 

25.6x75 

4,000 

4,000 

196 

do   

21 .9x75 

3,250 

3,250 

198 

20.5x75 

3,000 

3,000 

200 

do   

19.9x59 

2,250 

2,250 

202 

do   

20x54.6 

2,250 

2,'2&0 

204 

do  c.Hammersly 

17.9x54.6 
No.  34. 

3,750 

3,750 

387  Hudson-st.jTi.w.  c.  Ham- 

mei'sly,. . . . 

25x70 

6,500 

6,500 

389 

do   

25x100 

7,000 

7,000 

391 

do   

25x100 

7,000 

7,000 

393 

do   

25x100 

7,000 

7,000 

395 

do   

25x100 

7,000 

7,000 

397 

do   

22x100 

6,000 

6,000 

399 

do   

18x54 

3,000 

3,000 

401 

18x54 

3,000 

3,000 

403 

do  s.w.cClarkson 

17x54 

4,500 

4,500 

405 

do  n.  w.  c.  do 

25x60 

6,000 

5,750 

ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


59 


4C*7  Hudson-Street,   25x60 

409  do    25x100 

411  do    21x100 

413     '     do    29x100 

415  do    25x100 

417  do    16.8x71 

419  do    16.8x71 

421  do  s.  vv.  c.  Leroy,  16.8x71 

93  Hammersly-street,  ....  30 .25 

95  do    25x100 

97  do    25x100 

99  do    25x100 

101-         do    25x100 

103  do  ....  25x100 

36  Clarkson-street,    25x100 

38  do    25x100 

40  do    25x100 

42  do    25x100 

44  do    25x100 

46  do    19.6x60 

48  do  -    19.6x57 

50  do    19.6x55 

52  do    19.6x52 

45  dos.e.c.Greenwich  19.6x51 
35           do    21x67 

37  do    21x67 

39  do    25x100 

41  do    25x100 

108  Leroy-st.,   25x100 

585  Greenwich-st,  n.  e.  c. 

Hammersly,  29x67 

587  do    24.5x63. 

589  do    25x82.9 

603  do    15.4x24 

605  do    15.4x24 

607  do    25x111 

609  do    25.109 

611  do    25x107 


15,000 
6,000 
5,000 
7,000 
6,000 
3,000 
3,500 
5,000 
1,500 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
6,250 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
3,500 
3,500 
3,500 
3,500 
4,000 
3,500 
3,500 
6,000 
6,000 
5,000 


6,000 
4,500 
5,000 
1,000 
1,000 
6,500 
6,500 
6,500 


15,000 
6,500 
5,000 
7,250 
6,500 
3,500 
3,500 
4,500 
2,000 
5,750 
5,750 
5,750 
5,750 
5,750 
6,000 
5,750 
5,750 
5,750 
5,750 
3,500 
3,500 
3,500 
3,500 
3,570 
3,500 
3,500 
5,750 

•  5,750 
5,500 


6,500 
5,000 
5,500 
800 
800 
6,500 
6,500 
6,500 


60 


REPORT  OR  SELECT  OOMMITTEE 


■     No.  35, 
207  Varick-st.  n.  w.  c.  Ham- 

raersly,  16.8x60 

209       do     16.8x60 

211       do    16.8x60 

213       do    16.9x100 

215       do    20.9x100 

217       do    20.3x100 

219       do    17.3x100 

221       do    25x100 

223       do    25x100 

225       do  s.w.cor.Clarkson,  25x100 

47Hammersly-st.,   25x100 

49  do    25x100 

51  do    25x100 

53  do    25x100 

55  do    26x100 

57  do         ........  25x100 

59  do    25x100 

61  do    25x100 

386  Hudson-st.  cor.  Ham- 

mersly,  18x59.10 

388         do    18x59.10 

390         do   ....  18x61 

392         do    21x61 

394         do    25x100 

398         do    25x100 

8  Clarkson-st.,   25x100 

10  do    25x100 

12  do    25x100 

14  do    25x100 

16  do   25x100 

18  do    25x100 

20  do    25x100 

22  do    25x100 

On  Hudson-st.,  8  lots,  the 
front  from  Clarkson  to 

Leroy-st.,  each,   26x100 


$4,000 
2,750 
2,500 
4,000 
4,000 
4,000 
3,250 
5,000 
5,000 
6,500 
6,500 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 


4,250 
3,750 
3,750 
4,250 
6,500 
6,500 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,500 
5,750 


56,000 


$4,000 
2,750 
2,500 
3,750 
3,750 
3,750 
3,250 
5,000 
5,000 
6,500 
6,500 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 


4,500 
3,750 
3,750 
4,250 
7,000 
7,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,500 
5,750 


56,000 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


61 


24  lots  on  Clarkson  &  Leroy 


25x104 

$24,250 

$121,700 

No.  36. 

15.8x63.6 

3,500 

3,500 

25x63.6 

5,500 

5,500 

12.6x57 

2,500 

2,500 

12.6x57  ' 

2,500 

2,500 

442       do       s.  w.  c.  Mor- 

25x75 

6,000 

5,750 

447       do       n. W.C.Morton 

25x75 

7,000 

7,000 

449  do   

25x75 

6,000 

6,000 

25x75 

6,000 

6,000 

455  do   

25x100 

6,500 

6,500 

25x200 

6,500 

6,500 

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

78  do   

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

80  do   

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

82  do   

22 . 8x78 

4,250 

4,250 

84  do 

20x77 

4,000 

4,000 

20x77 

4, COO 

4,000 

90       do  C.Greenwich, 

20x77 

5,500 

5,500 

25x75 

4,250 

4,250 

24x100 

4,800 

4,800 

24x100 

4,800 

4,800 

79  do   

24x100 

4,800 

4,800 

80       do  c.Greenwichj 

20x50.2 

4,500 

4,500 

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

163  do   

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

25x109 

6,000 

6,000 

25.1x95.9 

6,000 

5,750 

25.1x92 

6,000 

5,250 

2d  .  1x114 

6,000 

6,000 

25 . 1x110 

6,000 

6,000 

641       do      s.AV. C.Barrow, 

DO  .  tlxZo 

5,000 

4,750 

No.  37 

34x100 

6,000 

6,000 

59  do   

25x100 

5,000 

5,000 

62 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


61 

15x100 

5,000 

5  onn 

63 

do   

25x100 

5  000 

5  nnn 

145 

Barrow-Street 

Fk  nnn 

D,(JUU 

149 

do 

9Fivi  on 

finn 

D,50U 

144 

do 

OKtI oo 

nnn 
D,UUU 

5,000 

146 

do   

25^1 00 

fi  nno 

f\  nnn 

148 

do 

25vi on 

Pi  000 

Fi  nnn 
o,uuu 

150 

do  

lOO  ^  1  \J\J 

Fi  Finn 

Fi  F;nn 

10 

Grove-street , 

lO  A.  <  O  .  O 

Q  nnn 

9  7Kn 

z,  /ou 

8 

do   

X  O  A.  <  O  ,  U 

'i  noo 

9  7f^n 

6 

do   

18x7'^  f? 

000 

9  75n 

4 

do   

20x67 

9  75n 
^5  /  ou 

438  Hudson,  n.  e.  c.  Morton, 

onn 

9  7Fin 

z,  /  ou 

12  fi-srfiO 

9  9  fin 

9  9Fin 

A  AO 

do   

1  9.  fiYfiO 

.  9  9  F.n 

9  OFin 

All 

444 

do   

19  fi-rfin 
.  DXOU 

9  OF^n 

o  o  pen 

2,250 

An 

9  9F^n 

A  1Q 

A^ 

do   

lis .  oxloO 

2,750 

2,750 

A  Kn 

do   

1  9  '7t1  fin 

9  i7f;n 

Z,  /DU 

Ar\ 

do   

19  f^Tion 

1>6  .  UA.XOV 

9  7F10 

9  75n 
/  OU 

An 

12  fi-rinn 

9  7FiO 

9  75n 

z,  /  ou 

456 

do   

25x1 00 

fi  000 

fi  noo 

U  ,Ul/U 

458 

do   

12  fixinn 

X      •  vF  A.  X  V/ V 

2  750 

9  75ft 

460 

do   

12  fixion 

X  >W  ■  vF  A.  J.\J\J 

2  750 

2  75ft 

462 

do    s.  e.  c.  Barrow, 

25x1 nn 

7  fSOO 

7  5nft 

464 

do  n.  e.  c.  Barrow, 

9J.  fl-ei  nn 

7  fiflO 

7  5nn 

466 

do   

1 9  QttI  nn 

9  7Fin 

z,  /  ou 

468 

do   

1 9  nn 

9  7Fin 

9  7Fin 

z,  /  ou 

468 1 

1  o  QiT- 1  nn 

Z,/OU 

470 

do   

19  ^Tinn 

9  7f\0 

9  75n 
^,  /  OU 

472 

do   

19  ^?Tinn 

9  7fi0 

9  75ft 

474 

do   

12  '^ttIOO 

9  750 

9  750 

476 

do   

12  2y100 

X      .  A' A.  X  V/ V/ 

2  750 

2,750 

478 

do   

9  750 

2  75ft 

480 

do   

24.6x100 

6,000 

6,000 

482 

do   

24.6x100 

6,000 

6,000 

No.  38. 

636  Greenwich,n.w. C.Morton  25.1x60 

5,500 

5,500 

638  Greenwich-st.,  

25.1x104 

6,000 

6,000 

ON  AFFAIRS  OF    TRINITY  CHURCH. 


63 


25.1x105.0 

6,000 

6,000 

642 

do   

25.1x107 

6,000 

6,000 

644 

do   

l<3.9x84.6 

3,500 

3,500 

646 

do   

16.9x85.6 

3,500 

3,500 

650 

do   

16.9x87.6 

3,500 

3,500 

652 

do   

16.9x88.6 

3,750 

3,750 

654 

do  s.w.c.  Barrow. 

16.8x89.6 

5,000 

5,000 

656 

don.w.c.  do 

26x80 

6,500 

6,000 

658 

do   

22x80 

4,500 

4,500 

660 

do   

19x80 

3,750 

3,750 

662 

do   

19x100 

4,000 

4,000 

664 

19x100 

4,000 

4,000 

666 

do   

19x100 

4,0U0 

4,000 

668 

do   

19x100 

4,000 

4,000 

19x100 

4,000 

4,000 

672 

do   

17.8x.100 

3,50u 

3.500 

617  Wash'n-stj.n.e.c.  Leroy, 

25x60 

5,500 

5,000 

619 

do   

25x60 

4,000 

5,000 

621 

do   

25x90 

6,000 

6,000 

623 

do   

25x90 

6,000 

6,000 

625 

do   

25x90 

6,000 

6,000 

657 

do  

26x90 

6,000 

6,000 

531 

do  s.  e.  cor.  Barrow, 

25x90 

8,000 

4,500 

633 

do  n.e.  cor.  Barrow, 

26x65 

5,750 

5,250 

641 

do   

26x106.10 

6,000 

6,000 

643 

do   

25x108 

6,000 

6,000 

156  Christopher-st.,  s.  e.  cor. 


Warren-st.  25x44.8 

6,000 

5,500 

154 

do 

5,500 

6,000 

152 

do 

5,000 

5,500 

150 

do 

5,000 

5,500 

148 

do 

5,000 

5,000 

146 

do 

5,000 

5,000 

144 

do 

4,500 

4,750 

No.  39. 


465  Hudson-street  n.  e.  cor. 

Barrow-st.,  19.11x83 


6,000 


6,000 


64 


REPORT   OF   SELECT  COMMITTEE 


467  Hudson-st.,  

20x83 

$1,750 

$4,750 

r1r> 

20x83 

4,750 

4,750 

rln 

36x125  ? 

17,000 

17,000 

with  rear  equal  to 

36x175  ( 

489 

do   

20x75 

4,750 

4  750 

493 

do   

20x75 

4,750 

4  750 

495 

do   

20x76 

497 

do  flit  on  Christop'r, 

20x77 

fi  000 

000 

y\J\J\J 

499 

do  s.  .w.  cor.  do 

23x67 

4,500 

3  500 

160 

Bar  ro  w-s  tree  t , 

20x80 

3  750 

162 

do   

Oyl  JU 

u  J 1  JU 

164 

do   

7F>0 

166 

do   

20x80 

3,700 

643  Greenwich-st.j  n.  e.  cor. 

Barrow-st. 

32x75 

5,500 

5,500 

645 

do   

22x75 

4,000 

4,000 

647 

do   

22x75 

4  000 

4  000 

649 

do   

22x75 

4,000 

4  000 

651 

do   

90\r7'S 

653 

do   

<C\j\.  4  %} 

655 

do   

3  750 

^  750 

657 

do   

20x75 

3,750 

3,850 

661 

do   

20x75 

3,750 

3  750 

665 

do   

3  750 

3  750 

667 

do   

'i  750 

7PiO 

669 

do   

^  750 

7^0 

671 

do   

20x75 

3  750 

3  750 

673 

do   

4  000 

3  750 

675 

do   

4  250 

4  000 

677 

do  s.e.cor.Christo'r 

1 5^60  3 

6,0l'0 

5,500 

3  000 

3  000 

138 

do   

19x60 

3,000 

3,000 

136 

do   

19x60 

3,000 

3,000 

134 

do   

22x60 

3,250 

3,250 

  $5,974,600  $5,956,130 

Ely's 

Dodd's. 

$6,108,150 

000  $6 

,031,350  00 

COMMUNICATION 

Of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of  JVew-  York,  to 
the  Honorable  Mark  Spencer,  James  JVoxon  and  J.  H.  Ramsey,  a 
Committee  of  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  JVew-Yoik. 

To  the  Honorable  Committee  of  t/ie  Senate-: 

The  rector,  churcli-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  Clivircli 
in  the  city  of  New-York,  beg  leave  to  make  the  following  reply 
to  a  note  of  the  committee  bearing  date  on  the  2d  day  of  Decem- 
ber, 1856,  asking  for  certain  information  touching  ihe  matters  of 
the  report  made  by  this  body  to  the  honorable  Senate  on  the  1 5th 
day  of  February,  1856, 

The  resolutions  of  the  Senate,  to  wTiich  that  report  was  a  re- 
sponse, required  the  number  and  names  of  the  persons  entitled, 
under  an  act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  corparation  of  Trinity 
Church  in  New- York,  and  for  other  purposes,  passed  January 
25th,  1814,  to  vote  at  the  annual  elections  for  church-wardens 
and  vestrymen  of  the  present  corporation  of  Trinity  Church, 
specifying  those  wlio  vote  as  communicants,  and  those  who  vote 
as  pew-liolders  in  the  said  church,  and  the  names  of  the  per- 
sons so  entitled,  who  did  actually  vote  at  each  of  the  three  last 
elections  held  for  the  choice  of  church-wardens  and  vestrymen 
of  said  corporation.  In  the  report  above  referred  to,  this  corpo- 
ration designedly  refrained  from  giving  the  names,  but  furnished 
the  number  of  the  persons  entitled  to  vote,  and  of  the  persons 
who  did  actually  vote  at  the  elections  referred  to  in  the  resolu- 
tions of  the  Senate.  The  vestry  took  this  course  because  they 
supposed  that  the  number  of  the  corporators  of  Trinity  Chiirch, 
either  exercising  or  refraining  from  the  exercise  of  the  privilege 
of  voting  at  elections,  might  be  material  to  some  point  that  the 
Senate  might  wish  to  determine,  but  that  the  names  of  such 
persons  could  not  be  material;  because  the  vestry  were  not 

5 


66 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


aware  that  the  liberty  to  inspect  a  list  of  such  names  had  ever 
been  refused  to  any  corporator,  because  the  vestry  believed  that 
the  honorable  Senate,  upon  receiving  the  report,  would  not,  at 
least  without  evidence  of  such  refusal,  exert  its  authority  for 
the  enforcement  of  a  mere  private  right,  and  much  less  for  the 
obtaining  information  of  no  public  importance,  which  might  be 
sought  by  individuals  who  had  themselves  no  legal  interest  to 
entitle  them  to  it;  and  because  the  vestry  being  aware  that  there 
existed  no  controversy  or  disagreement  among  the  members  of 
this  corporation,  were  apprehensive  that  the  publication  of  the 
names  asked  for  might  be  used  as  the  means  to  enable  persons 
not  corporators  to  attempt  to  influence  and  interfere  with  per- 
sons who  were  corporators,  and  to  create  dissensions,  where  now 
was  perfect  accord  and  harmony.  The  vestry  did  not,  and  do 
not  now  suppose  or  intend  to  intimate  that  the  honorable  Sen- 
ate intended  anything  more  than  to  procure  information  deemed 
by  them  material  for  that  bod)y  to  know,  to  be  used  only  as  the 
means  of  guiding  their  discretion  in  the  performance  of  some 
legislative  act.  Eut  parties,  not  members  of  the  Senate,  who 
by  their  representations  have  induced  the  proposal  of  the  resolu- 
tions 2iassed  by  that  body,  may  have  been  actuated  by  motives 
and  designs  of  which  the  honorable  Senate  is  not  cognizant;  but 
as  the  committee  has  now  reiterated  the  inquiry  of  the  Senate, 
the  vestry  do  not  consider  their  objections  to  making  a  reply  of 
sufficient  importance,  to  induce  them  to  withhold  making 
answer;  they  therefore  annex  Schedule  A,' showing  the  names 
of  corporators  who  are  communicants  and  not  pew-holders,  and 
of  those  who  are  pew-holders ;  and  also  the  names  of  the  voters 
at  the  several  annual  elections  mentioned  in  the  report  to  the 
Senate.   These  lists  are  believed  to  be  accurate. 

For  the  more  fixll  and  satisfactory  statement  of  the  affairs  of 
this  corporation,  in  their  late  report  to  the  Senate,  the  vestry 
stated  amongst  other  things,  the  amount  of  the  bonds  and  mort- 
gages held  by  the  corporation  on  1st  May,  1855,  a  statement  not 
called  for  by  the  resolutions  of  the  Senate.  It  was  not  then 
deemed  material  to  include  in  such  statement,  bonds  and  mort- 
gages of  churches,  because  they  are  not  productive  of  income, 
and  although  the  vestry  possess  the  power  to  foreclose  them, 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


67 


they  are  in  reality  only  held  to  secure  to  the  permanent  use  of 
the  protestant  episcopal  church  of  the  United  States,  the  church 
buildings  and  property,  upon  the  security  of  which  this  body  has 
loaned  money  to  other  church  corporations,  for  their  aid  and 
support.  The  vestry  believe  that  no  measures  have  been  taken 
to  foreclose  any  of  such  mortgages  or  to  collect  interest  upon 
them,  although  the  interest  has  been  remitted  upon  one  or  more 
of  such  mortgages,  when  the  lien  was  about  expiring  by  lapse  of 
time,  upon  an  agreement  being  made  to  revive  such  lien.  A 
schedule  of  such,  mortgages  marked  B,  is  hereto  annexed,  show- 
ing in  respect  to  each  mortgage  its  date,  the  names  of  the  mort- 
gagors, and  the  amount  secured  thereby,  and  unpaid.  The 
vestry  also  annex  a  schedule  C ,  showing  the  same  particulars 
of  certain  productive  mortgages,  received  since  1st  May,  1855. 
Since  that  date  the  principal  sum  of  $31,300  has  been  realized 
from  the  payment  of  mortgages  then  held  by  the  corporation. 
These  two  schedules,  B  and  C,  compehend  all  the  securities 
deemed  of  any  value,  which  are  now  held  by  this  corporation, 
and  not  comprised  in  their  last  report.  The  vestry  desire  to 
make  the  following  explanation  in  regard  to  the  inadvertent 
omission  in  their  former  report,  to  state  amongst  the  real  estate 
held  by  this  corporation,  their  interest  in  St.  John's  Park,  on 
Hudson  Square.  The  ground  comprehended  in  this  square  for- 
merly belonged  to  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church,  as  well  as 
the  lots  of  land  fronting  on  the  streets  opposite  the  same,  and 
had  been  laid  out  to  the  intent  that  it  should  be  and  remain  an 
ornamental  square  or  park  for  the  common  resort,  recreation  and 
enjoyment  of  the  persons  who  might  purchase  or  might  be  or 
become  lessees  of  lots  fronting  towards  the  same,  and  ot  their 
families  under  suitable  provisions  and  conditions  for  the  support 
and  maintenance  of  such  square,  by  such  owners.  Subsequently 
the  church  sold  all  the  lots  fronting  the  square,  excepting  only 
the  land  now  occupied  by  St.  John's  chapel  and  the  parsonage 
adjoining  the  same;  and  on  the  twenty-second  day  of  May,  1827, 
the  church  executed,  with  the  adjoining  owners,  a  declaration  of 
trust  by  which  it  was  agreed  that  this  corporation  should  and 
would  forever  hold  and  stand  seised  of  the  square,  upon  trust  to 
preserve  and  continue  the  same  forever  hereafter  as  a  private 


68 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


ornamental  park  or  square,  for  the  common  resort  and  recreation 
of  all  the  adjoining  owners,  their  heirs  and  assigns  and  of  their 
tenants;  with  the  provision  that  the  same  should  be  maintained, 
managed  and  controlled  by  the  adjacent  owners,  and  that  all 
taxes,  assessments  and  charges  upon  the  same  should  be  paid  by 
them ;  the  Church  always  to  pay  its  part  of  all  expenses  in  pro- 
portion to  Its  ownership  of  adjacent  land.  This  declaration  of 
trust  however  contained  a  provision  that  if  at  any  time  thereafter 
this  corporation  and  so  many  of  the  adjacent  owners  as  should 
together  hold  and  possess  two-thirds  of  the  lots  fronting  the 
square,  should,  by  writing  under  their  respective  seals,  mutually 
agree  upon  any  other  disposition  to  be  made  of  said  park,  then 
it  should  be  lawful  for  this  coriioration,  in  their  discretion  to  dis- 
pose of,  sell  and  convey  the  said  park  or  square  in  such  manner 
and  for  such  purposes  as  should  or  might  be  expressed  in  such 
writing;  it  being  understood  and  expressly  agreed  that  in  case 
of  such  disposition  all  the  adjacent  owners  (including  the  church) 
should  severally  participate  in  and  enjoy  the  benefits  thence 
resulting,  according  to  the  actual  extent  In  front  of  the  land 
which  they  might  severally  own  fronting  the  square. 

At  the  time  of  j^reparing  the  last  report  by  this  body  to  the 
Senate,  so  long  time  had  elapsed  since  a  resort  for  any  purpose 
had  been  had  to  ihe  above-mentioned  declaration  of  trust,  that 
it  was  not  remembered  that  the  corporation  retained  any  benefi- 
cial property  in  the  square,  which  might,  under  certain  contin- 
gencies, prove  of  large  value,  or  indeed,  of  any  value.  After, 
however,  the  report  had  been  transmitted  to  the  Senate,  applica- 
tion to  this  vestry  Avas  made  by  more  than  two-thirds  of  the 
adjoining  proprietors,  asking  that  this  corporation  would  assent 
to  a  sale  of  the  whole  Square  to  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  for  the  erection  thereupon  of  public  buildings;  and  after 
much  hesitation,  and  after  great  importunity  by  the  adjacent 
owners,  the  vestry  declared,  by  resolution,  that  they  would 
assent  to  such  sale,  provided  it  were  made  at  such  a  price  as 
that  the  proportion  of  the  proceeds  to  come  to  the  church  should 
amount  to  the  sum  of  $400,000.  This,  and  this  oply,  was  the 
whole  action  of  the  vestry,  in  relation  to  the  subject.  Consider- 
ations of  the  public  advantage,  by  keeping  the  grounds  open  as 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


69 


an  ornamental  square,  and  of  the  apprehended  injurious  effect 
upon  the  numbers  attending  St  John's  chapel,  were  the  cause  of 
much  doubt  whether  this  body  ought  to  yield  to  the  wish  of  tlie 
owners,  and  determine  the  vestry  not  to  consent  to  a  sale  for 
any  price  except  a  very  large  one;  the  naming  of  which  was  only 
reached  after  much  discussion  and  opposition,  and  probably  was 
only  assented  to  by  several,  under  the  persuasion  that  a  sale  for 
such  price  could  not  be  made. 

The  contingency  under  which  the  interest  of  Trinity  church 
in  Hudson's  park  would  be  productive  of  value,  was  never  ex- 
pected to  arrive,  and  as  the  result  shows,  has  not  occurred  and 
may  never  occur.  The  vestry  have  never  included  this  property 
in  any  of  their  reports  to  the  Legislature  The  committee  of  the 
Senate,  in  their  above-mentioned  note,  request  that  this  body 
will  set  forth  a  schedule,  stating  the  real  value  of  each  lot  or 
parcel  of  land  held  by  this  corporation,  irrespective  of  the  leases 
thereon.  The  vestry,  in  their  last,  as  well  as  in  all  previous  re- 
ports on  this  subject,  furnished  the  value  of  the  real  estate 
referred  to,  as  estimated  for  purposes  of  taxation,  by  sworn  oflSi- 
cers  of  the  city.  This  estimate  was  expressly  stated,  in  the  last 
report,  to  be  the  valuation  therein  reported,  and  was  made  the 
basis  of  all  the  calculations  therein  contained.  Doubtless,  many 
of  tlie  lots  comprised  in  the  schedules  annexed  to  that  report, 
are  worth  more  than  is  therein  set  down,  and  many  less.  The 
vestry  did  not  intend  to  depreciate  the  value  of  the  property  of 
the  corporation,  but  merely  to  give  the  only  accessible  estimate, 
expecting  it  to  receive  such  credit,  and  such  credit  only,  to 
which  it  might  be  justly  entitled.  But  statements  upon  such 
questions  are  mere  matters  of  opinion ;  and  the  vestry  are  unable 
to  agree  upou  any  estimate  of  their  own;  nor  do  they  think  it 
right  that  they  should  discredit  an  official  valuation  of  their  real 
estate  upon  the  basis  of  which  the  tenants  are  bound  to  pay  the 
taxes  and  assessments.  The  vestry  regret,  that  for  these  reasons 
they  are  unable  to  give  any  further  answer  on  this  point  than 
that  contained  in  their  report. 

WM.  E.  DUiNSCOMB, 

Comptroller. 


EXHIBITJ. 

SCHEDULE  A. 

JVames  of  Corporators  who  are  Communicayits  and  not  Pew-holders  : 

Willidm  H.  Hobart,  Cyrus  Curtiss,  John  A.  Dix,  Abel  T.  An- 
derson, John  H.  Andrews,  Horace  B.  Alexander,  Benjamin  B. 
Barnes,  Anthony  Barclay,  Morton  Bullus,  Benjamin  I.  Barnes, 
Mathew  Campbell,  James  N.  Croft,  Thomas  A.  Demilt,  John 
Duncan,  James  B.  Douglass,  Orlando  P.  Dorman,  William  Berrian, 
Edward  Y.  Higbee,  Benjamin  I.  Haight,  John  H.  Hobart,  Sulli- 
van H.  Weston,  Francis  Vinton,  Frederick  Ogilby,  Morgan  Dix, 
John  F.  Young,  Henry  Weld,  Thomas  Maslin,  John  Dugan,  Ed- 
ward Hodges,  William  H.  Walter,  Michael  Erben,  Dayton  Ho- 
bart, Joseph  T.  Harris,  John  Hart,  Alexander  C.  Hinton,  Samuel 

G.  Huntington,  Hodge,  Nelson  Jarvis,  James  Knight,  

Kissam,  Adam  D.  Livingston,  Eugene  Ledentre,  Nathaniel  F. 
Moore,  John  A.  Mitchell,  John  G.^Mott,  Walter  T.  Marvin,  John 
P.  Miller,  William  P.  Morgan,  John  Maunder,  James  Neeves, 
Thomas  W.  Ogden,  John  H.  Oakley,  Alfred  Ogden,  Charles  H. 
Ogden,  Jehiel  I.  Post,  George  Starr,  Ogden  Southmayd,  Shearjus- 
hut  Spooner,  William  W.  Voorhis,  John  L.  Vandervoort,  Thomas 
Walke,  Edward  Windust,  James  Btown,  William  Bartlett,  Jere- 
miah L.  Clark,  James  CarrutherSj  John  C.  Clarkson,  Clark- 
son,  Smith  Clift,  William  G.  Campbell,  Henry  F.  Drisler,  

Goddard,  William  A.  Guest,  A.  M.  Hart,  Thomas  Halen,  Lewis 
B.  Henry,  Charles  Hickman,  Jei-emiah  F.  Jenkins,  Mathias  I. 
Miller,  George  C.  Morgan,  Pliny  S.  Mills,  George  C.  Pennell, 
Horace  Reid,  John  P.  Ritter,  John  Trenor,  Timothy  Tredwell, 
James  A.  Underbill,  Alfred  Underbill,  Ozier  B.  Wilson,  Alex- 
ander Walker,  C.  B.  Willson,  I.  B,  Wilson. — Number,  92. 


ON  AFFAIKS  OF  TRINITY  CHUKCH. 


71 


JVames  of  Corporators  as  Pew-holders. 

William  Sharpe,  Alfred  Wagstaff,  George  W.  Welles,  Thomas 
Warner,  Edward  Neufville,  Richard  Ebbets,  Samuel  S.  Duns- 
comb,  Herman  Leroy,  Ebenezer  Irving,  I.  C.  Corp,  William 
Corp,  Robert  Cambridge  Livingston,  William  H.  Harrison,  Wil- 
liam Van  Hook,  Marcus  F.  Hodges,  David  Lydig,  Francis  R. 
Tillou,  Augitstus  Hammet,  George  G.  Sickles,  Joseph  Drake, 
William  G.  Haydock,  Louis  Loutrell,  John  B.  Schenelzel,  Alex- 
ander McDonald,  Ephriam  Treadwell,  William  B.  Ballow,  Philip 
Embury,  George  P.  Cammann,  John  Webb,  Robert  Hyslop, 
John  D.  Willams,  James  F  Depeyster,  Henry  Youngs,  Christo- 
pher Heiser,  John  H.  Howland,  Samuel  V.  Hoffman,  Walter 
R.  Jones,  Henry  Suydam,  Peter  M.  Suydam,  Calvin  Durand, 
William  C,  Heyward,  Anthony  J.  Bleeker,  Peter  Goelet,  L,augh- 
ton  Osborn,  Anthony  B.  McDonald,  Adam  Norrie,  William  C. 
Dusenbury,  Clermont  Livingston,  W.  Q.  Morton,  H.  Morton, 
Joseph  D.  Beers,  Lewis  Curtis,  John  A.  Willink,  Herman  Thorne, 
John  Lloyd,  James  Jones,  D.  P.  Campbell,  William  H.  Win- 
throp,  William  Kemble,  John  A.  King,  Charles  King,  Robert  S. 
Hone,  T.  W.  Canning  Moore,  Thomas  B.  Cumming,  William 
C.  Anderson,  George  Jones,  Lewis  C.  Hamersly,  Thomas  W. 
Ludlow,  David  Clarkson,  Thomas  Bolton,  Gulian  C.  Verplanck, 
Alexander  Watts,  John  P.  Nesmith,  Richard  D.  Van  Wagenen, 
John  Newbould,  John  Warren,  John  J.  Boyd,  Francis  Cottenet, 
John  D.  Ogden,  H.  C.  De  Rham,  Thomas  D.  Moore,  Robert 
Dumont,  Christopher  Milderberger,  John  McVickar,  Edmund 
Elmendorf,  Gabriel  Winter,  Cornelius  Oakley,  Joseph  Batten, 
Charles  Brown,  David  D.  Lyon,  Hazleton  Walkley,  Edward  P. 
Cooke,  Frederick  Peutz,  John  Pentz,  George  Bell,  Richard  H. 
Ogden,  John  David  Wolfe,  Nicholas  S.  Ludlam,  Henry  J.  Seaman, 
Alexander  GotheaJ,  John  Strang,  John  A.  Talman,  Abraham  R. 
Lawrence,  Christopher  Wolfe,  George  T.  Strong,  William  H. 
Shipman,  James  A.  Moore,  Joshua  Jones,  Humphrey  Rickertson, 
Nathaniel  Ferris,  Thomas  Gibson,  James  Warren,  Francis  V. 
Many,  Charles  H.  Clayton,  John  H.  Coutoit,  Theodore  F.  Brett, 
Richard  M.  Lawrence,  Jacob  S.  Piatt,  David  Rogers,  John  R. 
Livingston,  John  Q  Jones,  John  P.  Mumford,  Edward  J.  Innes, 


72 


RtfORT  OF    SELECT  COMMITTEE. 


Joseph  P.  Pirsson,  William  H.  Falls,  Charles  W.  Sanford,  John 
Alstyne,  Albert  G.  Thorp,  Archibald  G.Rogers,  Alfred  Ashfield, 
William  H.  Priest,  Charles  N.  S.  Rowland,  James  Pirsson,  Tim- 
othy T.  Kissam,  Henry  Pitcher,  Martin  Hoffman,  Thomas  C. 
Taylor,  William  Watson,  William  E.  Dunscorab,  Joseph  Hough, 
Thomas  H.  Thomas,  John  Ridley,  Richard  E.  Mount,  Alpheus 
Banning,  George  N.  Stebbins,  David  Reid,  Charles  Anthon, 
Talman  Bootli,  John  Langd'on,  E.  W.  Candee,  Thomas  Holyoke, 
John  B.  Miller,  George  A.  Baker,  John  Leconte,  John  B.  Pel], 
B.  Aycrigg,.  Frederick  R.  Spencer,  Peter  Erben,  John  S.  Smith, 
Theodore  Peck,  William  G.  Hammond,  Joseph  Willoughby,  J.  E. 
Capert,  Thomas  R.  Ackly,  John  Horspool,  David  Cotheal,  Thomas 
Gibbs,  James  Hillyer,  Eli  White,  William  Lowerre,  Albert  Jour- 
neay,  Jr  ,  James  Wallace,  Thomas  N.  Stanford,  C.  B.  Ostrander, 
Edward  E.  Sanderson,  William  Moore,  James  Barrow,  George 
Bruce,  Levinus  Clarkson,  Jr.,  George  Brooks,  Samuel  T.  Skid- 
more,  Clement  C.  Mt)ore,  John  R.  McComb,.  Selah  Van  Duzer, 
James  Benkard,,  Daniel  M.  Frey,  James  C.  Parker,  Thomas  C. 
Winthrop,  Charles  McAuly,  Samuel  Burrell,  Richard  Lawrence, 
Albert  Jane  way,  Jonathan  J.  Coddington,  Cornelius  Purdy,  Wil- 
liam McCall,  Thomas  C.  Butler,  William  Kemble,  John  Atwill, 
Edward  Dickson,  John  Duncan,  John  Johnson,  John  Barker, 
John  C.  Hamilton,  John  C.  Smith,  James  Campbell,  Lindley  M. 
Hoffman,  Thomas  Maslin,  Sidney  Mason,  Philip  Burrell,  Alex- 
ander Meaken,  James  W.  Bleeker,  George  Innes,  George  M. 
Ogden,  Lyman  Denison,  Thomas  W.  Ludlow,  Richard  M.  Hari- 
son,  John  H.  Conner,  Joseph  R.  Bleeker,  George  R.  L  Bowdoin, 
Thomas  Brown,  Louis  L  Piatt. — Number,  22L 

The  JSamesof  the  Voters  at  the  JJnnual  Election  Jcr  Church  Wardens 
and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  City  of  Neio-York,  in 
each  of  the  years  next  mentioned ,  were  respectively  as  follows  : 

In  the  year  1846. 

James  F.  DePeyster,  Peter  Erben,  E.  W.  Butler,  Richard 
Whitey,  Joseph  Dacuna,  William  A.  Stichner,  A.  L.  Underbill, 
L.  W.  Noxton,  Francis  V.  Many,  Joseph  D.  Beers,  Elam  |Bliss, 
Robert  Hyslop,  William  Van  Hook,  Samuel  Whitney,  John  A. 
Willink,  Joseph  Skillman,  William  H.  Harrison,  John  Webb, 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


73 


Clia)les  Burdett,  Edward  W.  Laight,  John  LeMaire,  Henry 
Cotheal,  Archibald  G.  Rogers,  Peter  Embury,  John  Battin, 
Talbot  Pirsson,  John  E.  Jsley,  Philip  Hone,  William  Johnson, 
Thomas  Bolton,  Thomas  B.  Cuming,  George  Jones,  J<)hn  T.  At- 
kinson, Guliau  C.  Yerplanck,  Garret  Storm,  Nicholas  S.  Ludlam, 
Thomas  H.  Thomas,  Mr.  Lee,  Thomas  Crow,  John  P.  Mum- 
ford,  Adam  Tredwell,  James  A.  Sparks,  John  H.  Whittaker, 
John  H.  Swiftj  Theodore  M.  Tuttle,  Thomas  D.  Moore,  Cornelius 
Oakley,  Humphrey  D.  Ricketson,  Edmund  Morewood,  Alex- 
ander L.  McDonald,  George  Brooks,  Henry  Youngs,  Abraham 
Warner,  Elias  G.  Drake,  Thomas  C.  Butler,  Joseph  P.  Pirsson, 
Jr.,  H.  D.  jVeal,  James  J.  Jones,  William  H.  Hobart.  Moses  0. 
Cuftis,  Benjamin  W.  Rogers,  Anthony  B.  McDonald,  Richard 
Sill,  Thomas  L.  Clark,  William  W.  L.  Voorhis,  Philip  Henry, 
Nelson  Jarvis,  William  Barnes,  William  E.  Dunscomb,  Peter  A. 
Mesier,  Charles  W.  Hackley,  Alexander  J.  Cotheal,  Theodore 
Phillips,  Robert  R.  Greele,  Anthony  J.  Bleecker,  David  Lyon, 
Charles  N.  S.  Rowland,  David  B.  Ogden,  Alpheus  Banning, 
Edward  T.  Higbee,  Charles  Osborne,  Edward  Hodges,  Jeremiah 
L.  Clark,  Nathaniel  F.  Moore,  William  Kemble,  John  W.  Pirs- 
son, William  Moore,  Thomas  B.  C.  Berrian,  David  Cotheal, 
Francis  R.  Tillou,  Thomas  Brown,  Samuel  G.  Raymond,  Stuart 
F.  Randolph,  John  Morrison,  James  Barron,  William  Berrian, 
Theophilus  Peck. — Number  97. 

Voters  for  the  year  1847. 
Cornelius  Oakley,  A.  B.  McDonald,  J.  P.  Atkinson,  William 
H.  Morrison,  Gulian  C.  Verplanck,  William  Berrian,  Dr.  Edward 
Hodges,  Thomas  Warner,  M.  J  Miller,  Joseph  D.  Beers,  Antho- 
ny J.  Bleecker,  Lewis  Curtis,  Philip  Hone,  Garret  Storm,  David 

B.  Ogden,  Humphrey  Ricketson,  Thomas  W.  Ogden,  William 
W.  Voorhis,  Adam  Tredwell,  William  E.  Dunscomb,  Thomas 
L.  Clark,  John  H.  Tallman,  William  Barnes,  John  P.  Mumford, 
David  D.  Lyon,  Philip  Henry,  Nelson  Jarvis,  Anthony  L.  Under- 
bill, Henry  Cotheal,  T.  T.  Kissam,  Alexander  J.  Cotheal,  Thomas 

C.  Butler,  William  Morris,  T.  S.  Brown,  Samuel  G.  Raymond, 
Alexander  L.  McDonald,  Henry  Youngs,  James  Barron,  James 
C.  Hooker,  Robert  Hyslop,  John  Morrison,  Charles  Osborn 
David  Cotheal. — Number  43. 


74 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Voters  for  the  Year  1848. 

Rev.  Edward  T.  Higbee,  Cornelius  Oakley,  David  B.  Ogden, 
Rev.  William  Berrian,  William  H.  Harison,  Edward  Hodges, 
Gulian  C.  Verplanck, Matthias  G.  Miller,  David  D.  Lyon,  Dayton 
Hobart,  A.  B.  McDonald,  John  R.  Livingston,  jr..  Rev.  Martin 
P.  Parks,  Adam  Tredwell,  William  E.  Dunscomb,  Rev.  William 
Morris,  William  W.  L.  Voorhis,  Edward  W.  Laight,  William 
Barnes,  Thomas  L.  Clark,  Philip  Henry,  William  H.  Priest, 
Alexander  I.  Cotheal,  Richard  E.  Mount,  Thomas  C.  Butler, 
Joseph  P.  Pirsson,  John  W.  Pirsson,  Thomas  B.  C.  Berrian, 
Alexander  L.  McDonald,  Samuel  T.  Skidmore,  Charles  Osborn, 
John  Webb,  Henry  Youngs,  Samuel  G.  Raymond,  John  C.  Ball, 
David  Cotheal,  Robert  ]Iyslop.    JVumber,  37. 

Voters  for  the  Year  1849. 

William  W.  Bours,  John  R.  Livingston,  jr.,  William  H.  Hari- 
son, Anthony  J.  Bleecker,  Edward  T.  Higbee,  Gulian  C.  Ver- 
planck, John  Lloyd,  Edward  Hodges,  Philip  Hone,  David  B. 
Ogden,  George  C.  Morgan,  Dayton  Hobart,  A.  B.  McDonald,  H. 
Morton,  David  D.  Lyon,  E.  M.  Peck,  George  Starr,  John  Al- 
styne,  John  W.  Pirsson,  Richard  Mount,  Cornelius  Oakley,  Ed- 
ward W.  Laight,  Joseph  Battin,  Theodore  M.  Tuthill,  William 
H.  Walter,  Alexander  J.  Cotheal,  William  W.  L.  Voorhies, 
Thomas  L.  Clark,  Edwin  B.  Clayton,  Adam  Tredwell,  Alpheus 
Banning,  Nicholas  S.  Ludlam,  William  E.  Dunscomb,  Thomas 
W.  Ogden,  David  Cotheal,  William  Moore,  Alexander  L.  Mc- 
Donald, Samuel  T.  Skidmore,  Peter  Erben,  James  Campbell, 
Elias  G.  Drake,  Joseph  Skillman,  sen.,  Thomas  Brown,  Henry 
Youngs,  Samuel  G.  Raymond,  Philip  Henry,  Peter  Embury, 
Abraham  B.  Skillman,  John  Scoles,  John  Morgan,  John  C.  Zim- 
merman, James  Barrow,  Robert  Hyslop,  George  R.  J.  Bowdoin. 
JVumber,  54. 

Voters  for  the  Year  1850. 
John  R.  Livingston,  jr.,  William  Berrian,  Rev.  Edward  T. 
Higbee,  William  H.  Harison,  Samuel  S.  Dunscomb,  Wra.  Cox 
Dusenbury,  Gulian  C.  Verplanck,  Matthias  I  Miller,  David  D. 
L3'on,  Cornelius  Oakley,  Adam  Tredwell,  William  E.  Dunscomb, 
Thomas  L.  Clark,  Edward  W.  Laight,  William  H.  Walter,  E.  B. 


Oy  AFFAIRS  OF  TRIKITY  CHURCH. 


75 


Clayton,  Thomas  C.  Butler,  Alexander  L.  McDonald,  Samuel  T. 
Skidmore,  Philip  Henry,  Henry  Youngs  H.  D.  Neil,  Thomas 
Brown.    JVumber,  23. 

Voters  for  the  Year  1851. 
Jeremiah  F.  Jenkins,  Franklin  Babbett,  Anthony  J.  Bleecker, 
Edward  T,  Higbee,  William  H.  Harrison,  William  Berrian,  John 
R.  Livingston,  Jr.,  Samuel  S.  Dunscomb,  John  P.  Nesmith, 
George  T.  Strong,  Archibald  G.  Rogers,  John  Lloyd,  Cyrus  Cur- 
tiss,  David  D.  Lyon,  John  I.  Boyd,  Matthew  I.  Miller,  William 
Corp,  John  C.  Corp,  Dayton  Hobart,  George  C.  Morgan,  Gulian 
C.  Verplanck,  Edward  Hodges,  George  Jones,  John  H.Brewster, 
William  S.  Ludlam,  Edward  W.  Laight,  William  E.  Dunscomb, 
Cornelius  Oakley,  Henry  Weld,  John  P.  Mumford,  Thomas  L. 
Clark,  William  H.  Walter,  James  \eeves,  Richard  H.  Ogden, 
Charles  X.  S.  Rowland,  Thomas  W.  Ogden,  Xelson  Jarvis,  Nich- 
olas S.  Ludlam,  Edwin  B.  Clayton,  Henry  I  Seaman,  William  H. 
Falls,  Alpheus  Banning,  John  Alstyne,  Samuel  Bell,  John  H. 
Tallman,  Nathaniel  F.  Moore,  Thomas  C.  Butler,  Morgan  Dix, 
Samuel  T.  Skidmore,  Alexander  L.  McDonald,  James  Campbell, 
James  Barrow,  Philip  Henry,  Thomas  C.  Winthrop,  Jonathan  I. 
Coddington,  James  Wallace,  Thomas  Brown,  John  L.  Yander- 
uoort,  Henry  D.  Neal,  Henry  Youngs,  Thomas  Maslin,  Abraham 

B.  Skillman,  Joseph  Skillman,  Sen.,  Stuart  F.  Randolph,  David 
Cotheal.    JVumber,  65. 

Voters  for  the  Year  1852. 
John  R.  Livingston,  Samuel  S.  Dunscomb,  Edward  Hod^s, 
George  Templeton  Strong,  Cyrus  Curtiss,  David  D.  Lyon,  Peter 
Erben,  Wm.  H.  Harison,  Wm.  Berrian,  Anthony  J.  Bleecker, 
Joseph  Hough,  A.  B.  McDonald,  Edwin  B.  Clayton,  Henry  Weld, 
Corlelins  Oakley,  Thomas  L.  Clark,  William  E.  Dunscomb, 
William  H.  Falls,  Nelson  Jarvis,  George  P.  Cammann,  Thomas 

C.  Butler,  Philip  Henry,  Morgan  Dix,  Henry  Youngs,  Alex.  L. 
McDonald,  Samuel  T.  Skidmore,  Thomas  Maslin,  James  Barron^ 
William  Moore.    A\mber,  29. 

Voters  for  i'lc  F^r  1853. 
J.  S.  B.  Hodges,  Jeremiah  Jenkin-,  R.  William  Berrian,  John 
R.  Livingston,  William  H.  Harison,  Anthony  J.  Bleecker,  Thomas 


76 


# 

REPORT  OF    SELECT  COMMITTEE. 


F.  Frank,  David  Lyon,  Peter  Erben,  Daniel  Sheldon,  George  C 
Morgan,  William  Penn  Morgan,  John  I.  Eoyd,  John  P.  Nesmith^ 
Edward  Hodges,  Ferdinand  Lawrence,  Cyrus  Curtiss,  Joseph  D. 
Beers,  John  H.  Oley,  John  F,  Miller,  Samuel  S.  Dunscomb, 
James  Brown,  Anthony  B.  McDonald,  Mattliias  I.  Miller,  Lewis 
Philips,  James  F.  Otis,  Robert  Cambridge  I^ivingston,  George  I. 
Eogers,  Charles  N.  S.  Rowland,  Edward  N.  Peck,  Archibald 
Rogers,  John  A.  Mitchell,  Edward  N.  Rogers,  Rev.  Benj.  I. 
Haight,  Thomas  L.  Clark,  Thomas  A.  Demilt,  Edward  Windust, 
James  Nevis,  Ozier  B.  Wilson,  Nicholas  S.  Ludlam,  John  Alstyne, 
Henry  Weld,  John  G.  Mott,  Thomas  W.  Ogden,  Richard  H. 
Ogden,  Frederick  Pentz,  Matthew  Campbell,  William  E.  Duns- 
comb,  Francis  V.  Many,  Thomas  D.  Moore,  Joseph  P.  Pirsson, 
Philip  Henry,  John  Hart,  M.  D.,  John  Paige  Mumford,  George 
T.  Adee,  James  Wallace,  Thomas  C.  Butler,  John  H.  Murphy, 
Samuel  T.  Skidmore,  Samuel  Burrell,  Thomas  C.  McRae,  Thomas 
Brown,  William  S.  Campbell,  John  P.  Ritter,  John  Bulkley,  Jr., 
Thomas  C.  Winthrop,  Joseph  R.  Bleecker,  John  H.  Cornell,  John 
Duncan,  Abraham  B.  Skillman,  Alexander  Walker,  George  P. 
Cammann,  Lewis  B.  Henry,  Robert  Hyslop,  Clement  C.  Moore, 
William  Moore,  Alex.  L.  McDonald,  C.  V.  B.  Ostrander,  Henry 
Youngs,  Nathaniel  F.  Moore,  David  Cotheal,  Peter  Embury, 
William  B.  Ballon,  Dayton  Hobart,  John  Lloyd,  Thomas  W.  C. 
Moore,  George  C.  Fennell,  George  T.  Strong,  Cornelius  Oakley, 
John  H.  Tallman,  William  H.  Walter,  Jehiel  L  Post,  John  H. 
Andrews,  William  W.  L  Voorhies,  Joseph  Hough,  Pliny  S.  Mills, 
Abraham  R.  Lawrence,  John  D.  Ogden,  M.  D.,  Richard  M.  Lau- 
rence, Alexander  I.  Cotheal,  Prof.  Charles  W.  Hackley,  Samuel 
Rogers,  William  Hinton,  Alexander  Chalmers  Hinton,  Alpheus 
Banning,  Anthony  Barclay,  John  McVickar,  William  H.  Falls, 
John  A.  Moore,  Nelson  Jarvis,  Charles  Hickman,  Samuel  Jones, 
Thomas  Maslin,  John  S.  Smith,  Ogden  Southmayd,  John  Webb, 
Louis  Loutrel,  Theophilus  Peck,  Elias  G.  Drake,  William  G. 
Haycock,  John  L.  Vandervoort,  John  Morisou,  Abel  T.  Ander- 
son, Francis  R.  Tillou,  John  A.  Dix,  James  Bargon,  Jonathan  L 
Coddington.    JVumber  127. 


• 

ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


77 


Votes  for  the  Year  1854. 
Rev.  Dr.  Higbee,  George  T.  Strong,  John  R.  Livingston,  Tlios. 
Scott,  A.  B.  McDonald,  Samuel  S.  Dunscomb,  David  D.  Lyon, 
Daniel  Sheldon,  Cyrus  Cm-tiss,  John  S.  Muraford,  Pliny  S.  Mills, 
John  H.  Tallman,  Richard  H.  Ogden,  William  E.  Dunscomb, 
John  A.  Mitchell,  Thomas  A.  Detnilt,  Henry  Weld,  Cornelius 
Oakley,  Nicholas  S.  Ludlam,  Thomas  C.  Butler,  Samuel  T.  Skid- 
more,  A.  L.  McDonald,  Henry  Youngs,  Robert  Hyslop,  Abel  T. 
Anderson,  Thomas  Maslin.    Kumher,  26. 

Voters  for  the  Year  1855. 
Dr.  Edward  Hodges,  John  H.  Oley,  Charles  H.  Oley,  William 
H.  Harison,  John  R.  Livingston,  Matthias  J.  Miller,  D.  D.  Lyon, 
A.  B.  McDonald,  A.  J.  Blacke,  Samuel  S.  Dunscomb,  John  Du- 
gan,  Cyrus  Curtiss,  William  Berrian,  John  P.  Mumford,  Henry 
Richard  H.  Ogden,  William  H.  Walter,  John  A.  Mitchell,  Cor- 
nelius Oakley,  William  H.  Falls,  Nicholas  S.  Ludlam,  William 
E.  Dunscomb,  Thomas  C.  Butler,  Theophilus  Peck,-  Thomas 
Brown,  R.  M.  Harison,  Samuel  T.  Skidmore,  A.  L.  McDonald, 
Henry  Youngs,  George  P.  Cammanu,  Henry  Erben,  Thomas  Mas- 
lin.   J\^umber,  32. 


SCHEDULE  B. 

Names  of  Mortgagors  and  Date.  Principal  amount, 

due  and  unpaid. 

St.  Paul's  church,  Poughkeepsie,  April  26,  1839,..  $5,000  00 
St.  Ann's     do     Port  Jackson,  formerly  Amster- 
dam, Sept.  7,  1838,   1,500  00 

St.  Bartholomew's  church,  N.  Y.,  June  1,  1837,   20,000  00  • 

St.  John's  church,  Medina,  Orleans  county,  Febru- 
ary 5,  1838,   1,500  00 

Grace  church.  South  Middleton,  Orange  county, 

Jan.  12,  1852,   1,750  00 

Grace  church,  Rochester,  July  31, 1834,   3,500  00 

St.  Clement's  church,  N.  Y.,  Oct.  24,  1836,   15,000  00 

St.  Philip's       do       do     Aug.  4,  1835,   9,000  00 

St.  Luke's        do       do     May  2,  1839,   15,000  00 

St.  Paul's         do       Richmond,  Ontario  county, 

Oct.  16,  1849,   500  00 


78 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Names  of  Mortgagors  and  Date.  Principal  amonnt 

due  and  unpaid. 

St.  Paul's  churcli,  Kinderhook,  Columbia  county, 

May  17,  1852,   $1,000  00 

St.  John's  ch'h,  Clyde,  Wayne  county,  Mar.  11,1853,  800  00 
St.  Mary's  church,  Beekman,  Dutchess  county,  April* 

13,  1853,   900  00 

Church  of  the  Intercession,  N.  Y.,  April  13, 1852. . .  1 ,000  00 

Christ  Church,  Tarry  town,  July  9,  1852,   1,000  00 

Church  of  the  Annunciation,  N.  Y.,  May  3,  1839,..  6,000  00 

St.  Peter's  church,  N.  Y.,  June  14,  1837,   25,000  00 

Zion             do     Rome,  Oct.  11,  1852,   1,000  00 

Calvary        do     Utica,  Sept.  28,  1852,.  . .    500  00 

St.  Paul's      do     Syracuse,  March  11,  1835,   1,800  00 

St.  Luke's      do     Brooklyn,  March  23,  1842,   1,500  00 

Christ  do  Oyster  Bay,  L.  I.,  July  27, 1844,  600  00 
S.  Paul's  church.  Pleasant  Valley,  Dutchess  county, 

May  15,  1847,   500  00 

Church  of  the  Holy  Apostles,  N.  Y.,  Sept.  16, 1847,  2,000  00 

do             do              do     Feb.  18, 1847,.  4,000  00 

Zion  church,  N.  Y.,  April  27,  1853,   7,000  00 

St.  Luke's  church,  N.  Y.,  June  9,  1851,   1 ,400  00 

Church  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  N.  Y.,  Nov,  12, 1850,  800  00 

do     the  Epiphany,  Oct.  27,  1847,   5,486  02 

St.  John's  church,  Brooklyn,  April  11,  1827,   4,000  00 

S.  Thomas's  do      Amenia,  Dutchess  county,  July 

17,1851,   500  00 

Trinity  church,  West  Troy,  Oct.  7,  1851,   1,000  00 

St.  Peter's  do    Peekskill,  March  19,1839,   1,000  00 

St.  John's  do    Kingston,  Ulster  county,  June  26, 

1839,   1,700  00 

St.  Luke's  church,  Rosseville,  Staten  Island,  May 

15,  1846,   1,500  00 

St.  Mary's  church,  Castleton,  Richmond  county,  July 

5,1853,   1,000  00 

St.  Mark's  church,  Newark,  Wayne  county,  May  9, 

1854,   500  00 

Trinity  church,  Granville,  Wayne  county,  Dec.  3, 

1851,   1,000  00 


ON  AFFAIBS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH.  79 

Names  of  Mortgagors  and  Dates.  Principal  amonnt 

due  and  unpaid. 

Grace  church,  Clinton,  St.  Lawrence  county,  Feb.  1, 

1843,   mo  00 

Grace  church,  Waterville,  Oneida,  Dec.  31,  1852,. .  1 ,000  00 
*St.  Thomas's  church,  New-York,  May  9,  1831, . ...  20,000  00 
Church  of  the  Nativity,  New- York,  April  13,  1837,  7,200  00 
St.  Barnabas  church,  Dearman,  April  18,  1854, ....  1 ,000  00 
Church  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  Stockport,  Co- 
lumbia county,  Nov.  9,  1851,   1,000  00 

Christ  Protestant   Episcopal   chui-ch,  New-York, 

April  29,  1853,   25,000  00 

Grace  church,  Albany,  Oct.  17,  1853,   1 ,000  00 

All  Saints  church,  N.  Y.,  \           '^2.  21,  Isll]  \  '''''' 

St.  Andrew's  do     Harlaem,  Jan.  21,1834,   4,000  00 

St.  Mary's       do     Manhattanville,  July  22,  1836,  1,289  13 

Christ            do     Coxsackie,  July  5,  1853,   -500  00 

Calvary          do     Williamsbtirgh,  Nov.  5,  1853,. .  500  00 

St.  Mark's      do             do            May  12,  1853,.  6,000  00 

St.  Paul's  do  do  400  00 
Church  of  the  Annunciation,  on  14th-st.,  N.  T., 

Feb.  18,  1854,   5,000  00 

Church  of  the  Holy  Evangelists,  and  St.  George's 

chapel,  N.  Y.,  July  21,  1851,   50,000  00 

Church  of  Ascension,  Green  Point,  King's  county, 

Sept.  14,  1855,   1,000  00 

Church  of  the  Messiah,  Greeiibiisli,  county  of  Rens 

selaer,  July  31,  1855,   1,500  00 

Church  of  the  Messiah,  Rhinebeck,  Dutchess  county, 

Sept.  15,  1S55,   1,000  00 

Assignment,  Saniucl  P.  Townsend's  bonds  on  the 

church  of  the  Holy  Innocents,  N.Y., Dec.  10,1853,  500  00 
St.  Luke's  church,  Jamestown,  Chautauqua  county, 

Dec.  21,  1855,   1,000  00 

Christ  church,  Coxsackie,  Greene  county,  Jan.  29, 

1856,   1,000  00 

•All  of  the  above  bear  interest  from  date,  except  St.  Thomas*  church,  N.  Y.,  whicb 
bears  interest  from  May  8, 1866. 


80 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Names  of  Mortgagors  and  Date.  Principal  amount 

due  and  unpaid 

Grace  church,  Brooklyn  Heights,  May,  1849,              $8,000  00 

All  Saint's  church,  Feb.  21, 1829,                               5,000  00 

do             Sept.  20,  1856,                             8,000  00 

St.  Luke's  church,  Mechanicsville,  Saratoga  county 

Noy,  17,  1856,                                                        -500  00 

Trinity  church,  Haverstraw,  April  17,  1856,                1,200  00 

Church  of  the  Messiah,  Glen's  Falls,  Nov.  12,  1850,     2,000  00 

St.  Paul's  church,  Williamsburgh,  June  28,  1850,..      1,000  00 

do     .                 do          Nov.  1,  1S56,. ..        500  00 

1319,525  15 

SCHEDULE  C. 


NAMES  OF  MORTGAGOIIS. 

Date. 

Principal  and  am'nt  due  and  unpaid. 

Principal. 

Interest  from. 

James  M.  Tuthill,  

do   

James  H.  Noe,  

Matthias  Clark,  

Alex'r  M.  L.  Scott,  

Mar.  24, 1856, 
Apr.  21,  1856, 

do 

do 

do 

do 

July  1,  1856, 

18,000  00 
10,000  00 
10,000  00 
8,000  00 
4,000  00 
13,000  00 
6,000  00 

Sept.24,  1856. 
Nov.  1,  1856. 

do 

do 

do 

do 

July  1,  1856 

-  State  of  New-York,  ) 
Oily  and  County  of  J\''ew  York.  ] 

We,  the  corporation  called  the  Rector,  Church-wardens,  and 
Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New- York,  do  here- 
by certify  and  decl>u-e  the  preceding  to  be  the  supplemental 
report  of  said  corporation,  adopted  on  the  IGth  day  December, 
instant,  made  in  response  to  a  note  of  the  Honorable  Mark  Spen- 
cer, James  Noxon,  and  Joseph  H.  liamsey,  a  committee  of  the 
Honorable  the  Senate  of  this  State,  dated  the  2d  day  of  Decem- 
ber, instant,  and  that  William  E.  Dunscomb,  Esquire,  by  whom 
the  said  supplemental  report  is  signed,  is  the  comptroller  of 
the  said  corporation. 

In  witness  whereof  we  have  caused  our  seal  to  be  here- 
[l.  S.J    unto  alfixed,  this  eighteenth  day  of  December,  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-six. 

By  order  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of 
New- York.  RICHARD  HAYDEN,  Cleric  of  the  Vestry. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


81 


To  the  Honorable  Mark  Spencer^  James  JVoxoi,  and  Joseph  H.  Ram- 
sey, a  committee  of  the  Honorable  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  JVew- 
York: 

I,  William  E.  Dunscomb,  of  the  city  of  New- York,  do  hereby 
certify  and  declare  that  I  am  the  comptroller  of  the  corporation 
styled  the  Rector,  Church- wardens,  and  Vestrymen  of  of  Trinity 
Church,  in  the  city  of  New-York,  and  that  it  is  part  of  my  duty 
to  keep  the  books  and  accounts  of  said  corporation;  that  the 
preceding  supplemental  report  to  the  committee  above-named, 
with  the  schedules  annexed,  marked  respectively  A,  B,  and  C, 
have  been  made  out  by  me  or  under  my  direction;  that  I  know 
the  contents  thereof,  and  believe  the  same  to  be  in  all  respecits 
just  and  true. 

WM.  E.  DUNSCOMB,  Comptroller. 
Dated  December  \8th^  1856- 


6 


EXHIBIT  M. 

Examination  of  the  Report  of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  before 
Committee  appointed  by  the  Senate. 

New- York,  2d  December,  1856. 
Present,  Committee — Mark  Spencer,  James  Noxon,  Joseph  H. 
Ramsey. 

Frederick  M.  Winston,  sworn. — Q.  Have  you  made  yourself 
acquainted  with  the  mortgages  held  by  Trinity  Church?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Did  you  obtain  your  knowledge  from  the  oflBce  of  the  reg- 
ister?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Have  you  also  examined  the  register's  ofl5ce  for  all  the 
mortgages  of  Trinity  Church  ?    A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  Is  this  a  true  account  of  said  mortgages?  A.  It  is,  I  believe. 
Q.  Are  these  all  the  mortgages  on  the  record  from  the  begin- 
ning?   A.  I  believe  they  are. 

Papers  rendered  by  F.  M.  Winston  marked  exhibits  A.  and  B. 
Copy  of  letter  to  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  29th  November,  on 
file,  marked  C. 

Reply  of  Trinity  Church  to  above  communication,  on  file, 
marked  D. 

Copy  of  answer  to  Trinity  Church,  on  file,  marked  E. 
Adjourned  to  3d  instant,  10  A.  M. 

3d  December,  1856—10  ^.  M. 
Committee  met — Present,  all  the  members. 
Charles  H.  Clayton  sworn. — Q.  Do  you  belong  to  the  congre- 
gation of  Trinity  Church?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Which  one?    A.  Trinity  chapel. 

Q.  As  one  of  the  corporators?  A.  We  hire  a  pew  in  the 
chapel ;  there  are  no  corporators  there  as  pew  holders ;  a  pew  hold- 
er is  not  a  voter  except  he  be  a  communicant}  they  have  raised 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHimCH. 


83 


the  lease  within  a  few  months  by  which  I  hold  my  pew  ;  this  is 
now  the  mode  in  which  the  pews  are  let.  Lease  left,  filed  F.  The 
lease  lasted  one  year  when  the  alteration  was  made  ;  change 
took  place  about  the  last  of  last  April. 

Q  Do  you  think  Trinity  Church  has  done  its  utmost  to  make 
the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation  available  for  the 
founding,  or  support  or  promotion  of  religious,  charitable  or 
educational  institutions  or  purposes  1    A.  I  do  not. 

John  W.  Ritck,  architect^  sworn. — Have  resided  in  the  city  of 
New- York  since  1830  ;  have  been  engaged  as  architect  daily 
since  2d  March,  1834,  in  this  city  ;  have  been  in  business  for  my- 
self since  1846.  My  business  is  principally  improving  property 
to  make  it  productive  to  the  owners  ;  have  made  many  designs 
for  buildings  in  all  parts  of  the  city,  and  consider  myself  able  to 
judge  of  the  value  of  real  estate  in  all  parts  of  the  city.  Have 
had  before  me  a  pamphlet  schedule  submitted  to  the  Legislature 
by  Trinity  Church,  and  from  that  have  made  a  sketch  of  all  lots 
therein  mentioned,  and  as  accurately  as  possible  without  an 
actual  survey.  These  maps  are  copies  from  the  tax  commis- 
sioners' office,  made  by  surveyors  employed  by  city  officers  to 
make  assessments.  The  values  placed  upon  the  lots  by  me  are 
believed  to  be  accurate. 

This  map  of  the  city  of  New-York,  shows  by  the  red  patches 
upon  it  the  property  owned  by  Trinity  Church.  One  lot, 
76  Chambers-street,  I  know,  sold  for  $16,000,  an  actual  sale, 
afterwards  for  $30,000,  which  was  abandoned,  since  for  $37,500, 
an  actual  sale,  and  is  now  worth  $50,000,  not  the  property  of 
Trinity  Church  but  in  the  immediate  neigborhood 

My  valuation  is  cash,  for  the  ground  only,  what  it  would 
bring  at  auction  at  the  Merchants'  Exchange  to-morrow. 

Abner  L.  Ely,  sworn. — Reside  in  Green-street,  am  agent  for  the 
care  of  real  estate,  agent  for  the  estates  A.  Loubat,  C.  F. 
Moulton  and  all  the  London  branch  of  the  Astor  family.  My 
occupation  has  led  me  to  have  acquaintance  with  property  in  all 
parts  of  the  city  ;  have  appraised  property  for  insurance  compa- 


84 


-IJBLEPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


nies  to  loan  upon,  I  have  looked  at  all  the  maps  made  by  Mr, 
Hitch  ;  have  put  a  valuation  upon  a  majority  where  they  were 
regular  lots,  which  schedule  of  valuation  he  leaves  and  is  marked. 
Said  estimate  of  valuation  is  what  it  will  bring  "for  cash  in  the 
auction  room.  There  are  a  number  of  irregular  lots  on  map  20, 
upon  which  I  have  put  no  valuation,  also  on  map  22,  also  on 
map  32  ■  have  estimated  according  to  what  property  immediately 
opposite  has  rented  for  on  short  leases.  The  value  of  property 
has  increased  very  much  within  a  few  years,  from  Fulton  to 
Reade-street.  I  esteem  the  present  market  price  too  high  to 
warrant  permanent  investments  between  those  streets,  and  there- 
fbre  the  prices  might  be  unjust  to  fix  as  the  basis  for  the  terms 
of  a  new  lease  of  twenty-one  years.  The  property  from  Reade 
to  Canal-streets,  is  now  changing,  and  there  have  been  but  few 
sales  recently,  from  which  to  fix  the  present  cash  value. 

Rev.  John  Henry  Hoharf,  sworn. — Am  assistant  minister  of  Trinity 
Church  ;  have  been  minister  in  the  parish  eight  years. 

Q.  Do  you  think  Trinity  Church  has  done  its  utmost  to  make 
the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation,  available  for  the 
founding  or  support  or  promotion  of  religious,  charitable  or 
educational  institutions  or  purposes  1  A.  I  believe  at  present 
that  there  is  a  desire  to  make  their  property  the  most  available  : 
I  believe  that  in  certain  matters,  more  might  have  been  done  to 
make  the  property  available. 

Edward  G.  Higbee,  sworn. — Have  been  assistant  minister  in 
Trinity  Church  for  about  eighteen  years. 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  has  done  its 
utmost  to  make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation, 
available  for  the  founding,  or  support  or  promotion  of  religious, 
charitable  or  educational  institutions  or  purposes  ?  A.  Almost 
from  the  period  of  my  connection  with  the  parish,  there  have 
been  circumstances  which  have  prevented  in  some  degree  the  full 
benefit  to  be  derived  from  this  fund.  I  am  at  present  not  able 
to  answer  whether  the  vestry  have  done  the  most  to  make  the 
fund  so  available.  I  understand  that  all  communicants  for  one 
year  preceding  the  election,  and  all  persons  holding  a  pew 


en  AiTATRS  OF  TRmTTY  CHTTRCH. 


85 


direct  from  the  vestry,  have  the  right  to  vote.  I  havB  never 
been  able  to  see  a  list  of  the  corporators  of  Trinity  Church, 
Dr.  Wainwright  and  myself  have  made  several  efforts  to  obtain 
such  a  list  unsuccessfully.  Dr.  Wainwright  after  being  made 
bishop,  told  me  he  did  receive  such  a  list.  The  list  is  kept  in 
the  office  of  Trinity  Church,  and  in  charge  of  the  controller  ;  on 
making  enquiries  for  such  a  list,  was  told  it  was  in  the  joint 
charge  of  said  controller  and  rector.  There  was  an  ordinance 
of  the  vestry  interfering  in  some  respects  with  the  privilege  of 
voting  in  Trinity  Chapel  for  a  time,  which  was  subsequently 
rescinded. 

Jesse  Pound,  sworn :  Am  clergyman  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
church,  have  been  so  for  eighteen  years  in  this  city;  was  con- 
siderably acquainted  with  the  proceedings  of  Trinity  Church  in 
managing  their  fund.  I  do  not  consider  the  trust  has  been  ad- 
ministered in  such  a  way  as  best  to  promote  the  object  for  which 
it  was  given.  Their  course,  in  certain  instances,  to  my  knowl- 
edge has  been  partial.  I  apeak  of  their  partiality  as  a  fact,  to 
my  certain  knowledge.  It  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  while  some 
churches  have  had  aid  to  an  excessive  amount,  others  have  been 
entirely  cut  off  or  proscribed.  My  period  of  ministry  here  ex- 
pired the  first  of  May  last;  had  charge  of  a  free  church  in  this 
city,  principally  attended  by  people  who  had  no  means  of  hiring 
their  own  seats.  There  was  not  a  wealthy  individual  in  the  con- 
gregation; applied  to  Trinity  church  for  aid  to  sustain  the  church, 
which  was  granted;  a  partial  aid;  $400,  for  several  years,  then 
reduced;  then  a  movement  was  made  to  withdraw  it.  This  was 
the  first  church  founded  in  the  city  by  individual  charitJ^  For 
some  reason,  a  prejudice  was  conceived;  a  proscriptive  course 
towards  it  adopted  and  pursued.  After  fourteen  years,  the 
church  died  out.  Six  months  after  this  took  place,  a  full  state- 
ment was  made  to  Trinity  Church  of  the  condition  and  prospects 
of  the  church,  with  the  purpose  of  discontinuing  the  church 
after  the  1st  of  May,  should  they  continue  to  withhold  aid. 
Copy  of  above  statement  handed  in  and  filed,  marked  G.  Trin- 
ity Church  allowed  my  church  to  be  closed  for  want  of  such  aid. 
At  the  very  time  this  was  permitted,  Trinity  Church  was  aiding 


86 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


largely  churches  up  town;  they  gave  largely  to  St  Luke's  that 
very  year,  which  had  already  received  $70,000.  To  the  church 
of  the  Annunciation,  a  wealthy  church  in  Fourteenth-street, 
$25,000,  besides  large  contributions  before.  The  notice  was  given 
in  November,  1855,  to  take  effect  1st  May  following.  St.  Mat- 
thew's church  was  closed  on  1st  May;  is  now  closed  and  offered 
for  sale.    The  property  has  been  re-conveyed  to  the  donor. 

Herman  D.  Jlldrich,  sworn:  Merchant;  resides  No.  SEast-Four- 
teenth-street;  have  lived  in  New-York  thirty -five  years.  Am 
acquainted  with  the  value  of  property  in  this  city,  below  Canal 
and  not  west  of  Greenwich-streets.  Am  acquainted  with  the 
property  marked  on  maps  2,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9, 10,  11,  and  12;have 
put  a  value  upon  the  property  marked  on  above  maps,  based 
upon  the  usual  terms  of  sale.  Have  a  list  of  the  property  on 
these  maps,  with  my  valuation  opposite  each  : 

Map.  Lot. 


dtt  1  O  HAA 

— same  value  as  year 

ago. 

1  O  AAA 

do  do 

26,000 

do  do 

205  do   

...  21,000 

do  do 

.  21,000 

do  do 

,  .  .  10,000 

do  do 

25,000- 

—10  per  ct.  advance 

on  year  ago. 

48  do   

. . .  22,000 

do  do 

do  do 

30,000- 

—not  much  change- 

13  do   

29,000 

do  do 

29,000 

do  do 

—5  per  ct.  advance 

on  year  ago. 

83  do   

,,,  21,000 

do  do 

22,000- 

—10  per  ct.  advance 

on  year  ago. 

,  20.000 

do  do 

18,000 

do  do 

,  ,  ,  18,000 

do  do 

ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TKINITT  CHURCH. 


87 


Map.  Iiot. 

7  273  Greenwich-street,    17,000- 

275          do    18,000 

277          do    14,000 

279          do    18,900 

281          do    9,000 

136  Chambers-street,    25,000- 

138          do    16,000 

140          do    15,000 

142          do    16,000 

148          do    21,000 

147          do    21,000 

155          do    20,000 

157          do    20,000 

159          do    20,000 

161          do    19,000 

163          do    19,000 

8  49  Warren-street,    25,000- 

51          do   25,000 

44          do    32,000 

56          do    29,000 

112  Chambers- street,   28,000 

114          do    28,000 

89  Reade-street,    18,000- 

9  69          do    24,000 

71          do    17,000 

10  Warren-street,    40,000- 

18          do    40,000 

20          do    40,000 

30          do    38,000 

5  Murray-street,    40,000 

7          do    40,000 

9          do    40,000 

251  Broadway,  (depth  107  ft.)  120,000 

252  do    90,000 

256          do    90,000 


•5  to  10  per  ct.  ad- 
vance on  year  ago. 


do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

■stationary. 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

•10  per  ct.  advance 
on  year  ago. 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 

do  do 

50  pr.  ct.  advance. 

do  do 

do  do 

■5  to  10  per  ct.  ad- 
vance on  year  ago. 


do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

OC^j  REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 

Map«  Lot. 

10    156  Reade-street,    9,000 — 50  per  ct.  advance 


11 

104 

do 

(if  25  ft  fronfJ  20  000 

f\c\  fir* 

100 

do 

18  000 

\X\J  \X\f 

108 

do 

  19,000 

do  do 

110 

do 

do  do 

12 

60 

do 

do  do 

74 

do 

  25,000 

do  do 

The  Reade-  street  property  has  increased  within  a  year  full  50 
per  cent.  Throughout  that  whole  district  a  general  advance  has 
taken  place  within  a  year. 

Adjourned  to  4th  instant,  at  10  A.  M. 

New- York,  Uh  December^  1856. 
Committee  met.    Present  all  the  members. 

Rev.  Stephen  H.  Tyng,  sworn.  Am  rector  of  St.  George's 
church  J  have  been  rector  for  eleven  years  and  six  months. 

Q.  Is  the  statement  in  that  report  of  Trinity  Church  relative 
to  St.  George's  Church  correct?  A.  To  the  best  of  my  know- 
ledge and  belief  it  is  not  correct. 

Q.  Do  you  now  speak  of  both  paragraphs  1  A.  I  did  refer  to 
both,  but  would  refer  to  particular  statements.  The  whole  con- 
sideration received  by  St.  George's  church,  in  consideration  of 
the  transfer  of  that  property,  was  $25,000.  I  do  not  know  of 
any  other  parties  to  whom  additional  moneys  were  paid.  They 
make  the  cash  transfer  on  the  property  $55,660.33 by  their  state- 
ment. To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief,  Trinity  church 
never  paid  but  $25,000  for  St.  George's  church.  I  know  nothing 
of  the  amounts  paid  for  improvement  of  the  church  of  the  Holy 
Evangelist. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church  has  done  its 
utmost  to  make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  coporation 
available  for  the  founding,  or  support,  or  promotion  of  religious, 
charitable,  or  educational  institutions,  or  purposes'?  A.  I  do 
not  believe  they  have. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


89 


Q.  Have  they  materially  reduced  the  stipends  formerly  paid 
to  clergymen  in  this  city  1  A.  1  have  heard  no  instance  in 
which  they  have  not;  have  heard  several  instances  in  which 
they  have. 

Jasper  Grosvenor,  merchant,  affirms  :  I  do  not  know  the  value 
Trinity  church  places  upon  the  lot  corner  Broadway  and  Murray- 
streets. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  make  an  offer  for  it  under  the  lease  \  A.I 
made  an  offer  of  $40,000,  subject  to  the  lease.  I  paid  them 
110,000  for  the  stipulation  that  they  would  renew  the  lease  at 
its  expiration  on  the  usual  terms.  My  lease  expires  in  1872 — 
the  renewal  to  befor  twenty-one  years  from  that  expiration.  The 
ground  rent  of  the  present  lease  is  $26.25  a  year.  I  hold  my 
lease  from  the  original  lessee,  but  it  has  passed  through  two  or 
three  hands  in  the  mean  time. 

John  W.  Todd,  builder,  sworn:  Resides  155  West  Twenty-first- 
street,  New- York :  have  lived  in  New-York  thirty  two  years  ; 
my  business  has  led  me  to  become  acquainted  with  the  value  of 
property  in  all  parts  of  the  city  ;  I  have  appraised  the  property 
shown  on  maps  1  to  19,  inclusive  ;  will  complete  it  in  a  short 
time,  and  hand  it  in  to  the  chairman  of  the  committee. 

Q.  Can  you  state  what  is  the  general  character  of  the  improve- 
ments on  this  property  1  A.  Except  a  lew  buildings  down  town 
they  are  generally  of  a  cheap  nature. 

Q.  What  influence  has  such  leases  upon  adjoining  property  1 
A.  To  deter  improvement, 

Q.  What  influence  upon  property  and  growth  A.  To  keep 
it  back. 

John  W.  Ritch,  recalled. — Have  placed  a  value  on  all  the  pro- 
perty described  on  the  maps,  from  one  to  thirty-nine,  inclusive, 
except  such  plots  as  are  used  for  burying  grounds  and  church 
purposes,  and  such  valuation  appears  upon  the  sheets  of  paper 
herewith  delivered  to  the  committee,  numbered  one  to  thirty- 
nine,  inclusive.  Maps  and  sheets  filed,  and  marked  H.  The 
improvement  generally  upon  this  property  is  poor.    Some  por- 


99' 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


tion  of  it  is  well  improved.  Many  of  them  are  of  the  worst 
character  in  their  effect  upon  their  neighborhood;  would  be 
much  better  for  city  and  property  owners  if  these  leases  were 
removed.  The  property  below  Duane-st.  is  well  improved. 
These  are  the  valuations  of  the  lots,  put  upon  them  by  Trinity 
Church,  and  by  which  they  were  relet  before  the  last  report  to 
the  Legislature  was  made,  within  three  years. 


205  Fulton-street, 

annual  rent 

$1,000, 

on  value  : 

$20,000. 

207  do 

do 

1,000, 

do 

20,000. 

35  Vesey-street, 

do 

1,225, 

do 

24,500, 

48  do 

do 

1,050, 

do 

21,000. 

13  Barclay-street, 

do 

1,250, 

do 

25,000. 

15  do 

do 

1,250, 

do 

25,000. 

83  Murray-street, 

do 

1,000, 

do 

20,000. 

18  Warren- street. 

do 

1,425, 

do 

28,500. 

44  do 

do 

1,250, 

do 

25,000. 

I  know  this  from  my  own  knowledge,  and  from  the  record 
ofiBce.  Valuation  placed  by  the  church  upon  the  property  occu- 
pied by  H.  R.  Railroad  depot,  corner  Chambers  and  Chapel-sts., 
was  $100,000,  about  a  year  ago. 

Sullivan  H,  Westorij  sworn. — Have  been  minister  in  the  church 
for  eight  years. 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  has  done  its 
utmost  to  make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation 
available  for  the  founding,  or  support,  or  promotion  of  religious, 
charitable  or  educational  institutions  or  purposes  ? 

A.  With  the  organization  they  had,  they  did  all  they  could — 
certainly  in  the  lower  part  of  the  city.  I  do  not  feel  able  to 
answer  the  question.  If  their  property  is  worth  what  it  is  rep- 
resented to  be,  I  think  they  have  not  done  all  for  the  poor  and 
the  church  they  might  have  done. 

Luther  Bradish,  sworn. — I  have  been  long  acquainted  with  the 
vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  and  the  management  of  its  trust,  and 
was  for  many  years  a  member  of  the  congregation  ami  a  pew- 
holder  in  the  church. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


91 


Q.  Do  you  think  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  has  done  its  ut- 
most to  make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation 
available  for  the  founding,  or  support,  or  promotion  of  religious, 
charitable  or  educational  institutions  or  purposes  1 

A.  I  do  not.  It  is  a  subject  of  serious  complaint  by  churchmen 
throughout  the  city. 

Q  What  has  been  the  operation  of  the  law  of  1814  on  the 
church  directly  1 

A.  The  direct  effect  was  to  exclude  a  very  large  portion  of  the 
original  corporators. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  the  law  of  1814,  and  do  you  think  it  in 
accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  original  grants  of  said  pro- 
perty 1 

A.  I  have  examined  it,  and  consider  it  a  flagrant  violation  of 
the  original  grants.  I  suppose  it  is  susceptible  of  being  ascer- 
tained who  were  entitled  to  vote  previous  to  the  law  of  1814.  All 
communicants  of  the  church  under  the  original  charter,  were 
entitled  as  corporators,  to  vote.  The  reports  to  the  convention 
would  prove  who  were  entitled  to  be  heard  in  1814. 

A.  In  what  other  respect,  if  any,  does  the  act  of  1 814  differ  from 
the  originel  grants  1  Trinity  Church  claims  under  the  act  of 
1814,  the  absolute  right  of  property  belonging  to  this  trust,  and 
has  exercised  such  right.  I  know  that  Mr.  Troup,  in  behalf  of 
Trinity  Church,  urged  it  as  a  reason  for  the  act  of  1814,  in  a 
pamphlet  over  his  name,  that  it  would  enable  Trinity  Church 
to  make  these  endowments.  I  do  not  know  that  Trinity  Church 
has  availed  itself  of  this  portion  of  the  act. 

Q.  In  what  respect  has  the  vestry  failed  to  do  what  was  asked 
in  the  first  question  ■?  A.  In  failing  to  aid  feeble  churches  and 
to  establish  others  where  required  in  this  city.  The  want  of  free 
churches  throughout  the  city  is  severely  felt 

Q.  Did  Episcopalians  in  the  city  petition  the  Legislature  for 
the  passage  of  the  law  in  1814 1  A.  Churchmen  throughout  the 
city  strenuously  opposed  the  passage  of  the  law. 


93 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Mr.  L.  Bradish  is  requested  to  answer  the  following  inter- 
rogatories : 

1.  From  what  source  was  the  property  now  held  by  Trinity 
Church  derived? 

2.  To  whom  and  by  what  title  was  these  grants  made  1 

3.  For  what  purpose  ? 

4.  After  the  change  of  government  at  the  Revolution,  to  whom 
and  under  what  title,  and  for  what  purposes  were  these  grants 
renewed  by  the  Legislature  of  this  State  in  1784  1 

5.  When  did  the  present  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  pro- 
cure a  change  in  the  title  and  control  of  this  property  ? 

6.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  change  1 

7.  What  its  effect  upon  the  vested  rights  of  corporators  as 
originally  constituted  ? 

8.  What  were  the  circumstances  under  which  it  became  a  law  1 

9.  Has  the  present  law  been  quietly  acquiesced  in  by  "  the 
inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York,  in  communion,  &c.,"  since 
the  passage  of  said  law,  or  have  they  resisted  it  as  an  illegal 
violation  of  their  vested  rights  1 

10.  Is  it  your  opinion  that  the  act  of  1814,  is  subversive  of 
the  rights  of  individuals,  and,  therefore,  unconstitutional  and 
unjust  1 

11.  Did  Col.  Troup  appear  as  counsel  for  Trinity  Church  in 
the  effort  made  by  that  corporation  to  procure  the  passage  by  the 
Legislature  of  the  law  of  1814,  by  which  the  rights  of  original 
corporators  were  cut  off? 

12.  Did  he,  in  his  argument  before  the  Council  of  Revision, 
state,  and  in  what  terms,  that  if  the  law  sought  were  passed,  giving 
the  control  of  this  vast  estate  exclusively  to  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  Church,  she  would  go  forward  with  more  freedom  and 
liberality  than  she  had  hitherto  done,  in  setting  olF  and  suitably 
endowing  independent  churches,  and  in  dividing  and  distributing 
the  large  lauded  estate  which  she  had  hitherto  held  as  trustee 
for  the  "  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-Yorii,  in  com- 
munion with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  chiu-ch,  in  the  State  of 
New-York." 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  THINITY  CHUHCH. 


•3 


13.  Have  you  examined  the  history  of  the  grants  of  land  by 
the  vestry  of  Trinity  church,  as  compiled  and  published  by  its 
rector,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Berrian  1 

Will  you  state  the  dates,  purposes,  grantees  and  value  of  said 
grants  of  land-,  as  given  in  said  history,  previous  to  the  passage 
of  the  la  w  of  1814  1 

Also,  the  like  facts  as  to  the  grants  of  land  by  said  vestry, 
since  the  passage  of  the  law  of  1814,  so  as  to  demonstrate  the 
comparative  results  of  the  law  in  question,  upon  the  interests  of 
religion  and  learning? 

1st  Answer.  The  property  now  held  by  Trinity  church  has 
been  derived  mainly  from  two  royal  grants,  the  first  in  1697, 
under  William  III.,  king  of  England,  consisting  of  the  parish 
church  and  a  part  of  the  land  known  as  "  the  queen's  garden," 
which,  together  with  two  lots  of  land  derived  from  other  sources, 
forms  the  present  church- yard,  or  burying  ground  of  the  church. 
The  second  in  1705,  under  Anne,  queen  of  England,  consisting 
of  the  tract  of  land  known  as  "  the  duke's  or  king's  farm,"  then 
"  the  queen's  farm."  Trinity  church  holds  some  other  smaller 
pieces  of  real  estate  derived  from  other  sources. 

2d  Answer.  The  first  of  the  grants  above  specified,  in  my 
answer  to  the  first  interrogatory,  was  expressly  "  declared  to  be 
forever  separated  and  dedicated  to  the  service  of  God,  and  to  be 
applied  to  the  use  and  behalf  of  the  inhabitants,  from  time  to 
time,  inhabiting  and  to  inhabit  within  our  said  city  of  New-York, 
in  communion  of  our  said  protestant  church  of  England,  as  now 
established  by  our  laws,  and  to  no  other  use  or  purpose  whatso- 
ever, any  statute  law,  custom,  or  usage  to  the  contrary,  in  any 
ways  notwithstanding." 

The  second  of  the  grants  above  specified,  and  by  far  the  most 
important,  was  made  to  the  corporation,  by  its  corporate  name, 
previously  created,  and  known  as  "  The  Rector  and  Inhabitants 
of  the  city  of  New-York,  in  communion  of  the  church  of 
England,  as  by  law  established,  and  their  successors."  This 
corporation  was  created  by  charter  under  William  III.,  of  Eng- 
land in  1697,  in  the  words  following,  viz.: 


94 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


"  And  we  have  further  thought  fit,  and,  at  the  humble  request 
of  our  loving  subjects,  are  graciously  pleased  to  create  and  make 
him,  our  said  Right  truly,  and  well  beloved,  and  Right  Reverend 
Father  in  God,  Henry  Lord  Bishop  of  London,  and  his  Successors, 
Rectors  of  said  Parish,  together  with  all  the  Inhabitants^  from 
time  to  time,  inhabiting,  and  to  inhabit  in  our  said  City  of  New- 
York,  and  in  communion  of  our  said  Protestant  Church  of  Eng- 
land, as  now  established  by  our  Laws,  as  Body  corporate  and 
Politic  *****  in  fact  and  name,  by  the  name  of  "TAe 
Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  our  said  City  of  JYew-York,  in  commu- 
nion of  our  Protestant  Church  of  England^  as  now  established  by  our 
Laws.''"' 

The  essential  powers  of  this  corporation  were  re  granted  by  an 
act  of  the  Colonial  Legislature  in  1704,  to  "The  Rector  and  In- 
habitants of  the  City  of  New- York  in  communion  of  the  Church 
of  England,  as  by  law  established,  and  their  Successors  " 

The  corporation  thus  created  by  the  charter  of  William  III., 
in  1597,  and  the  act  of  the  Coloniar  Legislature,  in  1704,  is  re- 
cognised in  the  grant  of  Ann,  in  1705,  and  the  grant  made  to 
that  corporation,  by  its  corporate  name. 

All  the  inhabitants,  from  time  to  time  inhabiting,  and  to  in- 
habit in  the  city  of  New- York,  and  in  communion  of  the  Protes- 
tant Church  of  England  as  established  by  law,  were  corporators 
of  the  corporation  created  by  the  aforesaid  charter  of  1 597,  and 
the  act  of  the  Colonial  Legislature  of  1704,  and  were,  therefore, 
beneficiaries  under  the  grants  of  William  III.,  in  1697,  and  of 
Ann,  in  1705. 

3d  answer.  From  the  terms  of  the  charter  of  William  III  ,  in 
1697,  of  the  act  of  the  Colonial  Legislature  of  1704,  and  of  the 
grant  of  Ann  in  1705,  it  is  evident  that  the  purpose  and  object 
of  these  grants  were  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  the 
principles  and  services  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
throughout  the  city  of  New- York. 

4th  answer.  By  the  legislative  act  of  1784,  the  corporation, 
created  by  the  royal  charter  of  1697,  and  act  of  the  Colonial 
Legislature  in  1704,  was  saved  from  forfeiture,  by  reason  of  any 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


non-user  or  misuser  between  the  19th  of  April  1775,  and  the 
date  of  the  said  act  of  1784;  it  being  expressly  enacted  in  the 
said  law,  "that  nothing  in  this  law,  nor  no  non-user  or  misuser 
between  the  19th  day  of  April  1775,  and  the  passing  of  this  law, 
shall  be  in  any  wise  construed  to  annul,  injure,  repeal  or  make 
void  the  said  charter,  or  the  said  law  first  above  particularly 
mentioned,  where  the  same  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State." 

In  its  manifest  object  of  adapting  the  corporation  to  the  new 
state  of  things  produced  by  the  Revolution,  the  consequent  inde- 
pendence of  the  State,  and  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  this 
State,  the  Legislative  act  of  1784  did  not  change  the  title  of  the 
corporation,  or  the  rights  of  the  parties  interested,  but  expressly 
declared  ''^that  nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be  construed, 
deemed  or  taken,  to  prejudice  or  injure  the  right  or  title  of  any 
person  or  persons  whatsoever,  to  any  lands  or  tenements  occu- 
pied or  claimed  by  the  corporation  aforesaid." 

5th  Answer.    In  and  by  the  act  of  January  25th,  1814. 

6th  Answer.  The  act  of  1814  authorized  the  corporation 
previously  created,  instead  of  its  then  corporate  name  of  "The 
rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York,  in  communion 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  in  the  State  of  New-York," 
"to  take  and  use  the  name  of  '■The  Rector,  Church-wardens,  and 
Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  JYew-Yorlc' ^'  This 
virtually  created  a  new  corporation,  with  new  corporators,  and 
new  qualifications  for  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  voting  for 
those  who,  as  agents  and  trustees,  were  to  manage  and  apply  the 
large  estates,  in  which,  by  the  original  grants,  all  the  inhabitants 
of  New-York,  in  communion  of  the  Protestanc  Episcopal  church 
in  the  State  of  New- York,  were  legally  interested. 

7th  Answer.  By  the  Royal  Charter  of  1697,  and  the  act  of  the 
colonial  Legislature  of  1704,  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New- York,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church, 
were  made  corporators  of  the  corporation  thereby  created,  and, 
as  such,  had  the  right  to  vote  for  the  church-wardens  and  the 
vestrymen,  who,  with  the  rector,  not  only  formed  the  vestry  of 


96 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


the  parish  church,  but  were  the  agents  and  trustees  for  the  man- 
agement and  application  of  the  common  property. 

By  the  act  of  1814,  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- 
York,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  were 
excluded  from  the  corporation  thereby  created  or  newly  mod- 
elled, and  deprived  of  the  right  of  voting  at  the  annual  elections 
for  churchwardens  and  vestrymen  of  the  said  corporation,  ex- 
cept "  male  persons  of  full  age,  who,  for  the  space  of  one  year 
preceding  any  election,  shall  have  been  members  of  the  congre- 
gation of  Tliuity  church,  or  of  any  of  the  chapels  belonging  to 
the  same,  and  forming  part  of  the  same  religious  corporation , 
and  who  shall  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in  Trinity 
church,  or  any  of  the  said  chapels,  or  have  partaken  of  the  holy 
communion  therein  within  the  said  year." 

The  act  of  1814,  also  seriously  affected  the  rights  of  property 
of  those  thus  excluded,  and  who,  by  the  royal  charter  of  1697, 
and  the  act  of  the  colonial  Legislature  of  1704,  were  constituted 
corporators  of  the  corporation  thereby  created,  and  beneficiaries 
under  the  valuable  grants  made  therein,  and  in  the  royal  grant 
of  Ann,  in  1705.  For  although  in  the  act  of  1814,  it  is  provided 
"  That  nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be  construed  to  affect 
or  defeat  the  right  of  any  person  or  persons,  or  of  any  body  cor- 
porate to  the  estate,  real  or  personal,  now  held,  occupied  or  en- 
joyed by  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church;"  yet  that  act  having 
already  deprived  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  of  the  right  o^ 
being  corporators,  and  voting  for  the  agents  and  trustees  of  the 
common  property,  the  saving  of  the  mere  abstract  right  of  pro- 
perty is  worth  very  little.  The  right  of  voting  for  the  agents 
and  trustees,  who  are  to  manage  and  apply  the  corporate  or 
common  property,  is  an  essential  incident  of  the  right  of  pro- 
perty itself;  is  indispensable  to  the  protection  of  such  right, 
and  necessary  to  give  it  full  effect.  The  mere  bald,  naked, 
abstract  right  of  property,  without  the  right  of  electing  the 
agents  and  trustees,  who  are  to  manage  and  apply  such  property, 
is  practically  of  little  value.  The  act  of  1814,  therefore,  in  ex- 
cluding the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  of  the  city  of  New-York 
ram  t\vi  new  corporation  thereby  created  or  materially  changed; 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


9^ 


and  in  depriving  them  of  the  right  of  voting  for  the  agents  or 
trustees  of  the  corporate  or  common  property,  not  only  deprived 
them  of  valuable  franchises  previously  granted  to,  and  enjoyed 
by  them,  but  virtually  divested  them  of  their  right  of  property; 
or  rendered  that  right  of  little  practical  value.  As  a  conse- 
quence, the  valuable  grants  originally  made  for  the  use  and 
benefit  of  the  inhabitants,  from  time  to  time  inhabiting,  or  to 
inhabit  in  the  city  of  New-York,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  and  to  the  rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city 
of  New- York,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
since  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814,  seem  to  have  been  viewed 
and  administered  as  the  individual  and  exclusive  property  of  the 
corporation  newly  created,  or  materially  remoddled  by  that  act; 
and  the  grants,  which  have  since  been  made  out  of  this  property 
by  the  new  corporation,  have  been  presented  as  gratuities  of 
that  corporation,  and  not  as  appropriations  of  the  proceeds  of  a 
trust  fuud,  to  which  the  parties  receiving  such  grants  were 
justly  and  of  right  entitled.  These  grants  have  been  claimed 
as  acts  of  liberality,  and  not  as  the  faithful  execution  ot  a  great 
trust,  created  and  endowed  for  expansive  benevolence,  not  for 
exclusive  or  restricted  emolument. 

Sth  Answer.  From  the  Journals  of  the  Legislature  and  the 
Council  of  Revision,  which  I  have  examined,  it  appears  that  the 
petition  of  Trinity  Church  for  the  act  of  1814,  was  presented  in 
the  Senate  of  the  State  on  the  17th  of  March,  1813,  a  bill  brought 
in,  which  was  passed  by  that  body  on  the  25th  of  March,  1813, 
and  by  the  Assembly  on  the  2d  of  April,  1813.  On  the  5th  of 
April,  1813,  the  bill  was  received  by  the  Council  of  Revision,  and 
referred  to  the  chancellor,  who  rei^orted  objections  to  the  bill. 
These  objections  were  considered  by  the  council  on  the  25th  of 
January,  1814,  when  the  vote  thereon  was  equally  divided.  No 
order  therefore  was  made  thereon,  and  the  bill  became  a  law  by 
lapse  of  time,  without  ever  having  received  the  express  sanction 
of  the  executive  department  of  the  government. 

9th  Answer.  The  act  of  1814  has  not  been  quietly  acquiesced 
in  by  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in  the  city  of  New- York : 
on  the  contrary,  from  its  passage  to  the  present  time,  it  has  been 

7 


98 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


a  continued  subject  of  dissatisfaction,  and  occasional  efforts  for 
its  material  modification  or  repeal. 

10th  Answer.  It  is  my  deliberate  opinion,  after  careful  ex- 
amination, that  the  act  of  1814  does  attempt  to  deprive  the  great 
body  of  Episcopalians  in  the  city  of  New-York  of  important 
franchises,  and  to  divest  them  of  their  rights  in  valuable  estates, 
granted  and  confirmed  to  them  by  legal  and  valid  acts;  and 
therefore  that  the  said  act  of  1814  is  unconstitutional,  unequal, 
and  unjust.  Nor  has  the  said  act,  in  my  opinion,  as  was  prom- 
ised at  the  fime  of  its  passage,  advanced,  nor  is  it  calculated  to 
advance,  the  great  objects  of  Christian  benevolence,  for  which 
the  original  corporation  vias  created,  and  so  liberally  endowed. 

11th  Answer.  In  a  pamphlet  over  the  name  of  "  Robert 
Troup,"  dated  6th  of  September,  1813,  and  while  the  bill  in 
question  was  before  the  Council  of  Revision,  or  its  committee, 
the:e  is  thy  following:  viz.,  "'with  his  zealous  exertions  to  pro- 
cure the  passage  of  the  bill  through  the  two  houses  of  the  Legis- 
lature, and  with  this  very  humble  attempt  to  recommend  it  to 
the  approbation  of  ihe  council."  From  this  declaration  of 
Colonel  Troup,  I  conclude  that  he  did  appear  as  counsel  or 
agent  for  Trinity  church  in  the  elfort'to  procui'e  the  passage  of 
the  act  of  1814. 

12th  Answer.  In  the  pamphlet  of  Colonel  Troup,  above  re- 
ferred to,  in  my  answer  to  the  11th  interrogatory,  and  which 
pamphlet  appears  to  have  been  written  in  support  of  the  bill  in 
question,  while  it  was  pending  before  the  Council  of  Revision, 
and  witlx  a  view  to  induce  its  passage  into  a  law,  there  are, 
among  others,  the  following  remarkable  and  very  significant 
paragraphs,  viz  ,  "judging  from  the  past,  it  is  morally  certain 
that  the  future  increase  of  the  population  of  the  city  will  strongly 
recommend  to  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  the  policy  of 
(Jividing  its  corporators,  and  setting  them  off  in  separate 
churches,  with  suitable  endowments;  and  to  enable  the  vestry 
to  do  this  in  a  mode  free  from  all  legal  doubts,  and  with  the 
assent  of  a  majority  of  the  corporators  to  be  set  off,  is  a  fifth 
object  of  the  bill." 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TR1N1T7  CHURCH. 


99 


Again  :  "The  bill,  when  passed  into  a  law,  would  have  the 
happy  consequence  of  enabling  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church, 
from  time  to  time,  as  society  shall  advance,  to  separate  churches 
with  the  consent  of  their  congregations,  and  to  endow  them  with 
competent  estates.  No  power  can  be  more  congenial  than  this 
to  the  spirit  of  our  republican  systems.  The  frequent  exercise 
of  the  power  likewise,  by  breaking  down  the  estate  of  Trinity 
Church,  would  allay  the  fears  of  those  honest  republicans,  who 
look  upon  large  estates  as  nurseries  of  sentiments  hostile  to 
liberty;  and  it  would  calm  the  minds  of  those  e»thusiastic  de- 
votees who  believe  that  religious  societies,  when  possessing 
wealth,  seldom  employ  enough  of  it  in  the  heavenly  work  of 
propagating  the  gospel." 

The  action  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  previous  and  sub- 
sequent to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814,  gives  peculiar  signifi- 
cance to  these  paragraphs  of  the  pamphlet  of  Col  Troup. 

13th  Answer.  I  have  examined  the  history  of  the  grants  of 
land  made  by  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  as  presented  in  "an 
Historical  Sketch  of  Trinity  Church,  New- York,  by  the  Rev. 
William  Berrian,  D.  D.,  the  rector  of  the  same,"  in  a  pamphlet 
entitled  "Facts  against  Fancy,  or  a  True  and  Just  View  of  Trin- 
ity Church,"  supposed  to  be  by  the  Rev.  Rector  of  Trinity  Church  ; 
and  in  a  conmunication  ot  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  to  the 
Senate  of  the  State,  in  reply  to  resolutions  of  the  same,  passed 
April  13,  1855,  transmitted  to  the  Legislature  Feb.  20,  1856. 

From  these  documents  it  appears  that  previous  to  the  passage 
ol  the  act  of  1814,  grants  of  land  were  made,  and  are  valued  as 
follows,  viz : 

Date.    No.  of  Lot.  Description  of  Property.'  Value. 

1748  Site  of  Trinity  school,  number  of  lots 

and  value  not  given.    (F.  16.) 

1752  All  these  lands  between  Murray  and 

Barclay-streets,  and  from  Church- 
street  to  the  river,  being  an  endow- 
ment of  Columbia  College,  (F.  15.)  $500,000  00 

1765  2  For  a  ferry  from  PaulusHook(H.  367.) 
Value  not  given. 


100 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Date.    No.  of  lot.  Description  of  property.  Value. 

1775  2  In  Vesey-street,  for  a  pier  and  slip. 
Value  not  given.    (  H.  368.) 

1786  3  For  the  use  of  the  senior  pastors  of 
the  Presbyterian  congregations  of 
New-York,  (H.  367,)    $50,000  00 

1798  28  To  St.  Mark's  church,  in  the  Bowery, 
viz:  5  in  Warren-st.,  1  in  Church- 
street  12  in  Reade- street,  3  in  Har- 
•  rison-street,  2  in  Greenwich-street, 
5  in  Provoost-street ;  value  in  1847, 
$131,500.    (F.  19,)   131,500  00 

1800  7  To  Trinity  school  on  Lumber,  Rector, 
av.d  Greenwich-sts.;  value  in  1847, 
135,000, now  (F.  16,)   50,000  00 

1802  32  To  the  society  for  promoting  religion 
and  learning  in  the  diocese  of  New- 
York,  situated  on  Barclay,  Warren, 
Greenwich,  Hudson,  Beach  &  North 
Moore-streets — value  in  1847,  $120, 
000,  now  much  more,  (F.  17.) 

1805  4  To  Christ  church,  New-York,  on  Bar- 
clay-street— value  in  1847,  $24,000, 
now  (F.  27,)   48,000  00 

1807  2  To  St.  Stephen's  church,  New-York, 
on  Warren-&t;  value  in  1847,  $13, 
000,  now  (F.  25,)   26,000  00 

1809       4    To  St.  James'  church,  Newtown,  viz: 

1  on  Reade-st.,  1  on  Greenwich-st., 

2  onLumber-st;  value  in  1847,  $20,- 
000,  now  much  more,  (F.  24.) 

1809       5    To  St.  Peters',  Westchester,  on  Reade 
Chambers  and  Warren-streets;  value 

in  1847,  $22,500,  now  (F.  23,)   45,000  00 

1809  5  To  St.  George's,  Flushing,  viz  :  3  on 
Warren-st.,  2  on  Chamber-st. ;  value 
in  1847,  $19,500,  now  greatly  in- 
creased, (F.  23.) 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TKINITT  CHURCH. 


101 


Date.   No.  of  lots.  Description  of  property.  Valne. 

1809  4  To  Grace  church,  Jamaica,  viz:  3  on 
Lumber-st.,1  on  Reade-st.;  Value  in 
1847,$18,500,now  much  more.(F.23) 

1809  2  To  St.  Ann's,  Brooklyn,  on  Chambers 
St.;  value  in  1847,  $13,000,  now 
(F.  24,)   $26,000  00 

1809  6  To  St.  Michael  and  James',  N.  York, 
on  Chambers,  Vesey  &  Warren-sts., 
value  in  1847,  $39,000,  now  (F.  26)      78,000  00 

1809  4    To  Trinity  church,  Utica,  viz :  3  on 

Reade-street,  1  on  Clark-street; 
value  $12,000,  since  materially  in- 
creased, (F.  27.) 

1810  2    For  a  free  school  in  Hudson-street, 

lots  and  value  not  specified,  (F.  13.) 

1810  Land  in  Duane-st,  for  a  market  in 

Brannon-street,  value  not  specified, 
(H.  368.) 

1811  25    To   Grace-church,   New-York,  viz : 

7  on  Rector-street,  2  on  Vesey-st., 
3  on  Barclay-street,  2  on  Warren- 
street,  5  on  Chambers-street,  2  on 
Church-street,  4  on  Reade-street; 

value  in  1847,  $120,000,  now   240,000  GO 

(F.  20.) 

1812  Land,  supposed  to  be  four  lots,  for  a 

market  on  Christopher-street,  be- 
tween Greenwich  and  Washington- 
streets;  value  not  given.  (H.231-2). 
1812-13  33  To  St.  George's,  N.  Y.,  viz:  8  on 
Reade-street,  4  on  Greenwich-street, 
6  on  Murray-street,  9  on  Chambers- 
street,  4  on  Warren-st.,  1  on  Bar- 
clay-street, 1  on  Beekman-street; 

value  in  1847,  $170,000;  now,   340,000  00 

H.  249,250— F.21.) 


102 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Date.   No.  of  lots.  DeBcription  of  proper  tyr  Value. 

1813  4  To  St.  James's,  New-York,  on  Cham- 
bers, and  Barclay-streets;  value  in 
1847,  $26,000;  now,  (F.  26,)   $52,000  00 

Grants  of  Land  made  subsequent  to  the 
passage  oj  the  act  of  1814. 
1815  Further  grant  of  lots  to  the  Free  School 

Society,  number  of  lots  not  given, 

supposed   to   be   five;   value  not 

given.    (F.  13.) 
1820        3    To  St.  Luke's  Church,  N.  Y. 
1827        2  do  do 

1834  3  do  do 

Value  in  1847,  $30  000;  since  ma- 
terially increased.  (F.  29.) 
1832  5  To  Trinity  School,  N.  Y.,  on  Canal 
Varick,and  Grand-streets,  leased  at 
a  nominal  rent  for  63  years ;  esti- 
mated equal  to  a  capital  of  $20,000. 
(F.  17.) 

1835  1    To  Ascension  Church,  N.  Y.,  on 

Vesey-street;  value  in  1847 ,$6,500; 

now,  (F.  31,)   13,000  00 

The  number  of  lots  in  the  foregoing  statement  includes  only 
those  grants  of  which  the  number  of  lots  is  given.  It  omits, 
therefore,  the  site  for  Trinity  Church;  the  whole  endowment  of 
Columbia  college,  so  far  as  the  number  of  lots  is  concerned; 
land  in  Duane-street,  granted  for  a  market  in  Brannon-street; 
and  land  on  Christopher-street,  for  a  market  on  that  street. 

From  "  the  communication"  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church 
to  the  Senate,  made  in  February,  1856,  it  appears  that  the  whole 
number  of  lots  given  to  churches  down  to  the  15th  of  February, 
1855,  was  146.  Of  these,  137  were  given  previous,  and  9  sub- 
sequent to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814. 

It  also  appears  that  down  to  1855  the  whole  number  of  lots 
given  for  the  advancement  of  the  church  and  of  religion,  for 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH 


103 


general  and  public  purposes,  and  to  institutions  of  learning  and 
charity  schools,  and  leased  for  63  years  free  of  rent,  was  172,  of 
which  162  were  given  previous  and  10  subsequent  to  the  pas- 
sage of  the  act  of  1814.  It  then  appears  that  down  to  February, 
1855,  the  whole  number  of  lots  given  by  the  Vestry  of  Trinity 
Church,  for  all  purposes,  was  318;  of  which  299  were  given 
previous,  and  only  19  subsequent  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of 
1814.  Of  the  299  lots  which  were  given  p-evious  to  the  pas- 
sage of  the  act  of  1814, 167  were  given  within  15  years,  94  within 
5  years,  and  62  within  3  years,  before  the  passage  of  that  act. 

It  also  appears  that  within  fifteen  years  before  the  passage  of 
the  act  of  1814,  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  built,  set  off,  and 
endowed  with  landed  estates,  three  churches;  since  the  pas- 
sage of  that  act,  not  one. 

It  also  appears  that  since  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814,  the 
number  of  Episcopal  parishes  in  the  city  of  New-York  has 
increased  from  nine  to  nearly  fifty;  but  that  not  one  ot  all  this 
increase  has  been  built,  set  off,  and  endowed  with  landed  estates 
by  Trinity  corporation. 

As  an  inducement  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814,  U  was 
urged  as  "  morally  certain  "  that  the  future  increase  of  the  pop- 
ulation of  the  city  would  strongly  recommend  to  the  corporation 
of  Trinity  church  the  policy  of  dividing  its  corporators,  and 
setting  them  off  in  separate  churches,  with  suitable  endowments; 
and  to  enable  the  vestry  to  do  this,  in  a  mode  free  from  all  legal 
doubts,  was  an  object  of  the  bill.  The  bill  was  drawn  up  and 
passed  accordingly;  but  since  its  passage,  the  corporators  have 
never  b  en  divided,  set  off,  and  suitably  endowed. 

As  a  iurther  inducement  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814,  it 
was  represented  that  the  bill,  when  passed  into  law,  would 
have  the  happy  consequence  of  enabling  the  vestry  of  Trinity 
Church,  from  time  to  time,  as  society  should  advance,  to  sepa- 
rate the  churches,  with  the  consent  of  their  congregations,  and 
Jp  endow  them  with  competent  estates  :  "  That  no  power  could 
be  more  congenial  than  this  to  the  spirit  of  our  republican  sys- 
tem :"    That  "  the  frequent  (execution)  exercise  of  the  power 


104 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


likewise,  by  breaking  down  the  estate  of  Trinity  church,  would 
allay  the  fears  of  those  honest  republicans,  who  look  upon  large 
estates  as  nurseries  of  sentiments  hostile  to  liberty  j  and  would 
calm  the  minds  of  those  enthusiastic  devotees,  who  believe  ihat 
religious  societies,  when  possessing  wealth,  seldom  employ 
enough  of  it  in  the  heavenly  work  of  propagating  the  gospel." 

Since  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814,  "the  happy  consequence" 
thus  promised,  has  not  been  realized  ;  the  churches  have  not 
been  separated  and  endowed  with  competent  estates ;  the  power, 
so  congenial  with  our  republican  systems,  sought  and  granted, 
has  not  been  exercised;  the  large  and  increasing  estate  of  this 
powerful  corporation  has  not  been  broken  down,  nor  the  fears 
of  honest  republicans  allayed,  or  the  minds  of  enthusiastic  devo- 
tees been  calmed. 

On  the  contrary,  since  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814,  every 
other  consideration  and  interest  seem  to  have  been  made  to  yield 
to  the  new-born  policy  of  accumulation,  and  paramount  object 
of  keeping  that  large  and  increasing  estate  together  in  one  mass. 
The  wise  and  salutary  policy  of  landed  endowments,  which, 
previous  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814,  had  given  away  299 
lots,  has,  since  the  passage  of  that  act,  with  its  novel  powers, 
and  increased  facilities,  been  so  far  paralyzed  as  to  grant  only 
19  lots  in  all;  and  for  more  than  twenty  years  last  past,  seems 
to  have  been  abandoned.  Since  1835  it  does  not  appear  that  a 
single  foot  of  this  large  and  increasing  landed  estate  has  been 
given  for  any  purpose  whatever,  unless  it  be  some  fine  burial 
plots  in  Trinity  cemetery,  given  to  charitable  societies. 

Instead  of  grants  of  land,  the  corporation  seems  to  have  con- 
fined itself  of  late,  wholly  to  the  practice  of  making  pecuniary 
grants,  either  in  the  form  of  loans  on  mortgage,  or  in  most  cases, 
in  small  annuities,  or  annual  stipends,  dependent  wholly  upon 
the  will  of  the  donor. 

The  effect  of  this  would  naturally  be,  as  it  is  believed  to  have 
been,  to  interfere  with  the  independence  of  both  clergy  and 
parishes.  It  is  believed  too,  that  this  habitual  leaning,  for 
apnual  support,  upon  this  wealthy  corporation,  has  had  the 


ON  AFFAIKS  OF  TKINITY  CHURCH, 


105- 


natural  effect  of  weakeBing,  rather  than  strengthening  feeble 
parishes. 

The  parishes  which  have  received  endowments  in  land,  are, 
almost  without  exception  prosperous  and  strong.  They  are  now, 
not  only  independent  of  further  aid,  but  are  able  and  willing  to 
aid  others.  Whereas  a  large  proportion  of  those,  which  have 
only  been  aided  by  annual  stipends  in  money,  have  naturally, 
and  almost  necessarily  spent  the  money  as  fast  as  received, 
without  acquiring  any  permanent  strength,  or  any  feeling  of  self- 
reliance;  and  consequently  are  now  no  more  able  to  sustain 
themselves  by  their  own  inheritent  and  acquired  strength,  than 
they  were  many  years  ago. 

A  return  to  the  policy  and  practice  of  endowments  in  landed 
estate,  as  contemplated  in  the  act  of  1814,  and  was  promised  as 
an  inducement  to  the  passage  of  that  act,  can  alone  give  a  real 
and  healthy  development  of  church  growth  and  parochial  inde- 
pendence. This  together  with  a  more  active  and  diffusive 
appropriation  of  this  large  and  increasing  trust  estate,  substitut- 
ing, for  the  policy  of  accumulation,  and  a  too  restricted,  if  not 
exclusive  use,  a  more  equal  and  just  participation,  can  alone 
tully  accomplish  the  great  object  of  this  trust  estate,  and  faith- 
fully carry  out  the  benevolent  purposes  of  its  donors;  while  a 
perseverance  in  the  present  policy,  and  a  continuance  of  the  sti- 
pendiary system,  can  only  extend  the  list  of  pensioners  on  this 
fund,  impair  the  wholesome  spirit  of  self-reliance,  promote  pa- 
rochial debility,  and  personal  dependence,  and  thus  defeat  a 
great  object  of  active  and  diffusive  christian  benevolence. 

I  cannot  but  think,  therefore,  tliat  the  passage  of  the  act  of 
1814,  and  the  new  system,  which  if  not  induced  by,  has  been 
pursued  under  it,  have  not  promoted,  in  the  best  manner  and 
highest  practicable  degree,  the  interest  of  religion  and  learning, 
but  have  been  essentially  injurious  to  both. 

The  foregoing  answers  are  mainly  given  from  knowledge 
derived  from  a  careful  examination  of  the  documents,  or  copies 
thereof,  referred  to  therein;  and  I  believe  them  to  be  just  and 
true.  L.  BRADISH. 

JVew-York,  Dec.  24,  1856. 


106 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Samuel  T.  Skidmore  appeared: 

Q.  Are  you  a  vestryman  of  Trinity  cTiurch,  and  member  of  the 
standing  committee'?  A.  Yes;  I  decline  to  be  sworn,  for  tlie 
reason  that  in  view  of  the  communications  passing  between  the 
committee  and  comptroller,  it  seems  to  me  improper. 

Thomas  H.  Taylor^  sworn;  Am  rector  of  Grace  church;  have 
been  so  for  nearly  twenty-three  years. 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church  has  done  its  ut- 
most to  make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation 
available  for  the  founding,  or  support,  or  promotion  of  religious 
charitable,  or  educational  institutions  or  purposes?  A.  From 
my  outward  observation  of  their  acts,  I  should  say  not. 

Q.  In  what  respect?  A.  Because  they  have  not  multiplied 
churches  throughout  the  city  to  any  extent,  in  proportion  to 
their  means.  The  aid  which  they  have  extended  to  feeble 
churches  has  been  done  reluctantly  and  offensively,  ei  her  by  \ 
taking  mortgages  on  the  churches  to  which  they  advanced  money, 
or  by  annual  payments  to  the  support  of  the  minister;  in  either 
way  increasing  their  power  over  the  corporations  and  minister 
of  the  church  to  an  extent  which  was  fatal  to  all  independence 
of  thought  or  action  on  the  part  of  such  corporations  or  ministers. 
The  tendency  "of  this  action  is  to  enable  her  to  exercise  an  over- 
whelming influence  throughout  the  diocese.  Grace  church, 
with  about  five  hundred  communicants,  has  no  representation  in 
this  corporation,  by  the  act  of  1814;  that  act,  together  with  the 
subsequent  action  of  the  vestry,  has  had  the  effect  to  cut  all  off, 
the  same  effect  applies  to  all  the  churches  in  the  city.  In  illus- 
tration of  my  opinion,  I  would  state  that  a  very  worthy  minister 
of  a  parish  in  the  vicinity  of  the  city,  whose  church  was  embar- 
rassed by  a  debt  of  some  four  thousands  of  dollars  was  told  by 
his  warden  that  he  had  applied  to  the  controller  of  Trinity  church 
for  aid  in  their  pecuniary  embarrassment.  The  reply  he  received 
was,  "  we  can  give  you  no  help,  fur  your  minister  voted  against 
us  at  the  last  convention."  The  reply  of  the  warden  amounted 
to  this,  "  our  minister  voted  against  the  restoration  of  Bishop 
Onderdonk,  but  in  doing  so,  we  do  not  perceive  how  he  voted 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHTRCH. 


107 


against  Trinity  Church."  The  controller  replied,  "to  vote 
against  measures  approved  by  Trinity  church  is  to  vote  against 
her,  and  we  are  resolved,  for  the  future,  to  take  care  of  our 
friends."  The  warden  remarked,  "if  the  course  of  our  minister 
is  to  ruin  me  and  his  church,  I  will  go  his  security  that  he  will 
not  oflfend  in  that  way  again."  The  minister,  who  came  to  me 
with  this  statement,  then  said,  -'of  course,  nothing  is  left  to  me 
but  to  pay  this  debt,  or  to  leave  the  church.  As  I  cannot  do  the 
one  I  must  seek  for  the  bread  for  my  children  somewhere  else, 
for  the  warden  is  my  personal  friend,  and  he  is  personally  liable 
for  the  debt."  He  resigned  his  parish,  and  left  the  State.  This 
Is  but  one  of  the  many  instances  of  the  sort  that  has  come  to  my 
knowledge. 

John  D.  Wolfe,  sicom. — Am  merchant  in  the  city  of  New-York. 
Was  formerly  a  vestryman  of  Trinity  Church  for  about  ten 
years.  I  was  omitted  at  an  election  some  eight  or  ten  years 
since. 

Q.  To  you  think  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  has  done  its 
utmost  to  make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation 
available  for  the  founding,  or  support,  or  promotion  of  religious, 
charitable,  or  educational  institutions  or  purposes  1  A..  They 
did  not  much  in  the  way  of  charity;  for  that  general  object  I  do 
not  think  they  did.  Have  never  seen  a  list  of  the  corporators  ; 
the  vestrymen  are  not  allowed  to  see  it  tliat  I  know  of  The 
reletting  of  lots  when  leases  expired  was  done  by  a  finance  com- 
mittee to  whom  the  offers  were  made  and  then  approved  by  the 
vestry.  They  do  not  make  annual  reports  of  the  affairs  of  the 
church  nor  are  any  published. 

William  E.  Dunscomb,  sworn. — Am  comptroller  of  Trinity 
Church. 

Q.  In  addition  to  the  property  set  forth  in  the  report  to  the 
Legislature,  does  not  Trinity  Church  hold  other  bonds  and  mort- 
gages? A.  There  are  unproductive  mortgages  on  churches, 
taken  for  grants  made  which  were  not  included.  A  sum  of 
money  is  granted  as  a  loan  and  mortgages  taken  for  the  aid 
granted  to  the  churches;  like  other  mortgages,  there  is  a  power 
to  foreclose  them,  but  we  never  take  measures  to  collect  them  ; 


108 


KEPORT  OF    SELECT  COMMITTEE. 


never  have  exercised  the  power ;  it  is  understood  as  being  an 
ordinary  loan,  as  aid  to  them,  but  giving  Trinity  Church  the 
right  to  call  for  principal  or  interest.  I  have  no  recollection  of 
measures  being  taken  to  foreclose.  I  cannot  state  the  name  of 
the  persons  entitled  to  vote.  I  have  no  authority  to  give  the 
list  of  bonds  and  mortgages  above  referred  to,  and  would  consult 
with  the  vestry. 

Q.  Have  you  a  list  of  the  voters  in  your  possession  1  A.  One 
of  the  lists  was  lost  and  afterwards  found,  and  the  number  but 
not  the  names  was  added  to  our  report.  I  presume  their  names 
are  in  the  office  ;  if  the  committee  of  the  vestry  authorize  me  to 
furnish  such  list  I  will  do  so. 

Q.  "What  interest  if  any  has  Trinity  Church  in  St.  John's 
Park?  A.  Since  its  appropriation  as  a  park,  it  has  never  been 
considered  as  property  to  be  disposed  of  by  the  church  ;  they 
owned  the  whole  park  originally  ;  we  have  never  made  any 
negotiation  for  the  sale  of  it ;  do  not  know  that  owners  have 
offered  the  church  any  sum  for  their  interest ;  the  vestry  did  fix 
a  value  of  $400,000  upon  it. 

Q.  DijJ  you  find  it  difficult  to  sell  lots  in  their  present  condi- 
tion 1  A.  We  cannot  sell  them  without  first  consulting  our 
tenants,  and  nobody  applies  to  purchase  leased  lots  but  them. 
On  page  6  of  the  report,  those  37  lots  sold  have  been  mostly 
sold  to  the  tenants,  and  the  47  re-let  have  been  re-let  to  the 
lessees.  The  church  does  sell  lots  in  the  neighborhood  of  War- 
ren and  Murray-streets,  where  they  have  become  valuable. 

Q.  What  was  the  inducement  to  continue  under  lease  the  pro- 
perty corner  Muri-ay  and  Broadway-sts.,  when  offered  $50,000 
for  it  1  A .  They  have  sold  so  much  that  they  want  to  keep  in 
reserve  for  all  time  something  for  the  churches.  The  renewal 
of  the  leases  is  done  by  a  committee.  The  value  of  the  buildings 
separate  from  the  lots,  was  estimated  by  sending  around  agents 
to  enquire  into  the  value  of  those  buildings.  Trinity  Church 
makes  an  annual  report  to  the  body  of  the  vestry  of  the  affairs 
of  the  corporation,  but  does  not  publish  it.  The  report  is  in 
the  office,  and  open  to  the  inspection  of  any  member  of  the 
vestry. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OV  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


109 


Q.  Have  not  the  vestry  been  urged  by  Gen.  Dix  and  others  to 
publish  it?  A.  Gen.  Dix  was  anxious  to  have  it  published,  but 
the  vestry  did  not  think  it  worth  while;  he  wanted  it  published 
to  be  useful  to  the  vestry,  but  not  for  general  circulation.  There 
have  been  two  reports  made  to  the  Legislature  which  were 
published  at  large,  but  the  others  were  not  intended  for  general 
circulation. 

Copy  of  Mr.  Dunscomb's  testimony  made  and  sent  to  him  at 
his  request. 

Cyrus  Curtiss,  sworn. — Am  merchant  in  the  city  of  New- York; 
am  a  vestryman  of  the  Trinity  Church;  have  been  so  for  about  6 
years;  I  have  seen  one  list  of  the  corporators  which  was  kept  by 
Dr.  Berrian,  at  an  election.  There  is  an  annual  report  of  the 
affairs  of  the  corporation  made,  but  not  published;  some  of  the 
vestry  have  desired  to  have  it  published.  Have  been  on  a  com- 
mittee to  examine  the  annual  report  and  examination  of  the 
accounts  of  the  controller;  they  have  access  to  all  the  books 
referred  to  in  the  annual  report,  and  such  only. 

Q.  Why  do  you  continue  to  relet  lots  instead  of  selling  when 
the  corporation  is  in  want  of  funds  7  A.  I  cannot  say  because 
it  is  a  subject  that  belongs  to  the  standing  committee  of  which 
I  am  not  a  member;  do  not  know  of  the  number  of  lots  given 
away  since  1814.  It  has  been  the  policy  of  the  vestry  of  late  to 
give  no  lots,  what  they  give  is  a  donation.  The  pews  in  Trinity 
Chapel  were  let  the  first  year  in  a  manner  to  preclude  the  crea  ■ 
tion  of  a  corporator;  by  that  act  they  deprived  them  of  the  pri- 
vilege of  voting  as  a  pew-holder,  and  on.  the  second  year  that 
restrictive  clause  was  rescinded.  My  impression  is,  the  stand- 
ing committee  has  the  power  to  renew  leases  in  the  church.  I 
do  not  know  the  value  of  the  interest  of  the  Trinity  Church  in 
St.  John's  Park. 

Q.  Has  no  value  been  placed  on  itl  A.  I  am  not  able  to  say 
that  any  value  has  been  placed  on  it;  the  subject  of  selling  it 
was  referred  to  a  committee.  The  business  of  the  church  is 
principally  done  through  the  standing  committee,  comprising 
about  six  besides  the  controller  and  clerk.    I  should  suppose 


110 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


the  controller  has  the  power  to  furnish  a  list  of  assets  and  cor- 
porators. 

Adjourned  to  Friday,  19th  December,  10  A.  M. 

New-York,  Dec,  1856,  10  a.  m. 
Committee  met,  present  all  the  members. 

James  H.  JVoe,  brush  manufacturer^  iworn. — Q.  Did  you  buy  a 
lot  of  Trinity  church  within  a  year  1  A.  I  did;  the  deed  is 
dated  the  1st  of  May. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  make  your  bargain?  A.  In  the  lat- 
ter part  of  January  or  1st  of  February,  1856. 

Q.  Where  was  the  lot  1    A.  275  Greenwich-street. 

Q.  What  price  did  you  pay  tor  it?    A.  $20,000. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  lot  sold  in  that  neighborhood? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Supplementary  Report  in  reply  to  a  note  of  Hon,  Mark  Spenctr, 
James  JYoxon  and  J.  H.  Ramsey,  a  committee  of  the  Senate,  bear- 
ing date  December  2,  1856,  from  Trinity  church,  handed  in^ 
marked  J. 

Jibner  L.  Ely,  recalled. — Q.  Will  you  look  at  that  appraisal 
and  say  which  is  yours  ?  A.  The  second  column,  with  my  name 
at  the  top,  with  the  figures  entered  in  black  ink. 

Jno.  W.  Ritch,  recalled. — Since  last  sworn  I  have  collected 
several  of  the  maps  presented  by  me  on  that  occasion,  and  the 
appraisal  is  my  appraisal  of  the  lots  appearing  upon  the  maps 
as  corrected.  The  sum  total  is  $5,431,520.  The  valuations 
numbered  from  1  to  39  consecutively,  correspond  with  the  maps 
and  are  my  valuations  of  the  property  represented  on  the  maps. 
This  valuation  is  made  as  the  price  they  would  now  bring  at 
auction.  My  valuations  are  so  moderate  that  I  can  find  pur- 
chasers for  the  sever^il  lots  at  the  prices  I  have  named. 

Rev.  Henry  Jinthon  sworn. — Was  assistant-minister  in  Trinity 
church  from  1831  to  1836. 

Q.  Do  you  think,  from  what  you  saw  during  that  period  and 
up  to  this  time,  that  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church  has  done  its 
utmost  to  make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation 


ON  AFFAIES  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


Ill 


available  for  the  founding  or  support  of  charitable  religious  and 
educational  institutions?    A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Are  the  assistant-ministers  members  of  the  vestry  ?  A.  They 
are  not.  While  I  was  assistant  I  had  a  conversation  with  a  Mr. 
Graham,  one  of  the  vestry,  and  I  impressed  upon  him  the  neces- 
sity of  establishing  two  funds,  one  for  church  buildings  and  one 
for  church  glebes,  he  replied  that  my  policy  was  to  open  the 
strong-box  and  his  was  to  keep  it  closed  ;  my  reply  was,  no, 
your  policy  is  to  open  it  to  your  favorites. 

Q.  In  aid  rendered  by  Trinity  Church  to  other  Episcopal 
churches  of  this  city,  since  1814,  has  such  aid  been  spontaneous 
and  voluntary  to  the  extent  of  its  means,  or  has  it  generally 
been  given  reluctantly,  and  after  earnest  and  protracted  solicita- 
tions 1 

A.  The  aid  furnished  by  Trinity  Church  since  1814  has  been 
done  upon  applications,  and  not  voluntarily,  and  such  aid  in 
many  cases,  I  have  reason  to  believe,  has  been  reluctantly 
granted. 

Q.  Have  mortgages  in  many  cases  been  required  as  security 
for  the  sum  advanced  1 

A.  In  several  cases,  to  my  knowledge,  it  has  been  done. 

Q.  What  effect  has  aid  in  these  forms  upon  independence  of 
speech  and  freedom  of  action  on  the  part  of  parishes  and  clergy- 
men thus  aided  when  they  meet  in  our  diocesan  conventions  and 
other  church  associations,  and  when  there  are  diversities  of 
opinion  as  to  matters  of  morals  and  doctrine  1 

A.  In  my  opinion  the  effect  is  seriously  to  impair  their  inde- 
pendence. 

Q.  In  applications  for  aid,  has  Trinity  church,  in  your  opin- 
ion, favored  those  whose  party  views  and  actions  were  similar  to 
her  own  1 

A.  Unquestionably.  For  instance,  while  the  application  of 
St.  Jude's  church  was  pending,  which  was  ultimately  refasf  d,  it 
is  said  grants  were  made  St.  Luke's,  the  Holy  Apostles,  Dr.  Sea- 
bury's,  and  others. 

Q.  Have  they  refused  aid  on  the  avowed  ground  that  the  views 
of  the  applicants  were  not  coincident  with  their  own  1 


112 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


A.  It  is  my  belief  that  they  have; 

Q.  Have  they  in  any  way  endeavored  to  control  the  free  opin- 
ion or  acts  of  vestries  or  ministers  who  had  received  or  were 
seeking  aid  for  their  churches  1 

A.  I  know  an  instance  where  they  refused  aid  because  the 
rector  had  interested  himself  in  obtaining  signatures  to  a  memo- 
rial to  the  Legislature  for  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1S14.  It  was 
in  the  case  of  St.  Jude's  church,  in  this  city,  in  1845.  He  was 
informed  that  the  success  of  his  application  depended  upon  his 
keeping  silence  in  the  convention.  It  is  my  impression  that  the 
large  grants  of  aid  to  the  Church  of  the  Annunciation,  when 
country  churches  were  refused  aid  in  small  suras  of  $300  to  $400, 
showed  the  operation  ofpartizan  feelings.  It  appears  to  me,  that 
tiie  History  of  Trinity  Church,  by  Rev.  Dr.  Berriau,  from  1835 
to  1847,  shows  that  the  grants  to  churches  and  individuals  stand 
in  the  proportion  of  $80,000  to  what  are  called  high  churchmen, 
to  $8,000  to  those  who  are  called  low  church.  (Pages  384,  385, 
386,  History  of  Trinity  Church,  by  Dr.  Berrian,  the  rector.) 

Q.  What  facts  are  in  your  knowledge  to  prove  that  the  vestry 
of  Trinity  church  has  not  done  its  utmost  to  make  the  capital  of 
the  property  of  that  corporation  available  for  the  founding  or 
support  of  charitable,  religious,  and  educational  institutions  1 

A.  In  1813,  the  property  was  of  such  value  that  the  vestry,  to 
calm  the  fears  of  the  Legislature,  in  view  of  their  great  wealth, 
promised  that  their  funds  should  be  applied  to  the  building  of 
churches,  from  time  to  time,  as  the  increase  of  population  de- 
manded; the  control  of  such  churches  to  be  relinquished  to 
independent  vestries,  &c.,  suitable  endowments  to  be  made.  In 
the  forty-three  years  that  have  elapsed  since  1813,  the  vestry 
have  built  Trinity  church  and  its  chapel,  at  a  cost,  it  is  said,  of 
half  a  million,  a  sum  which  would  have  built  twenty-five  or 
thirty  ordinary  churches,  and  instead  of  endowing  any  churches 
have  made  loans  to  several,  from  time  to  time,  taking  mortgages 
on  their  property,  &c.,  consequently  holding  them  as  their 
debtors. 

Q.  Has  the  law  of  1814  been  acquiesced  in  by  Episcopalians 
generally,  or  have  they  resisted  it  as  an  illegal  violation  of  their 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHDRCH. 


113 


vested  rights'?  A.  The  law  of  1814  has  not  been  acquiesced  in 
by  Episcopalians  in  this  city,  and  has  been  objected  to,  and  strong 
efforts  have  been  made  by  Episcopalians  to  have  it  repealed. 

Joseph  Tucker^  sworn. — I  purchased  two  lots  of  Trinity  Church 
in  April  last,  for  $10,000  each;  numbers  283  and  285  Huds<m-st., 
west  side,  seventy-five  feet  from  Spring-st. 

Matthias  Clark,  svoorn. — I  purchased  one  lot  of  Trinity  Church 
about  the  first  of  last  March,  number  525  Greenwich-street,  gave 
$6,000  for  it.  I  hav«  known  the  property  a  good  many  years, 
and  do  not  consider  there  was  any  variation  of  any  consequence 
in  the  value  of  my  own  or  Mr,  Tucker's  lots  for  six  months  pre- 
vious to  the  purchase. 

Jlhner  L.  Ely^  recalled. — Presents  an  appraisement;  this  ap- 
praisement is  my  valuation  of  the  property  appearing  upon  the 
maps  as  corrected  by  Mr.  Ritch^  the  column  in  the  list  with  my 
name  at  the  head  is  my  appraisement.  ,1  should  be  willing  to 
purchase  any  three  lots  lying  together  at  my  valuation  above 
Reade-street.    Paper  marked  I.    Total  valuation  $6,103,500. 

John  M.  Dodd,  recalled  — The  appraisement  presented  by  Mr. 
Ely  contains  in  it  my  appraisement  of  the  value  of  the  lots  set 
forth  in  the  maps.  The  column  in  the  list  with  my  name  at  the 
head  is  my  appraisement.  I  will  purchase  to  the  extent  of  my 
means  any  or  all  of  the  property  at  the  value  I  have  put  upon  it. 
I  consid' r  it  a  low  valuation,  except  the  down  town  property 
which  I  consider  valued  at  its  present  selling  price^  Paper 
marked  I.    Total  valuation  $6,087,050. 

James  M.  Tuthill,  sworn. — I  bought  last  February  a  lot  of  Trinity 
Church  for  my  wife;  gave  $10,450  for  itj  marked  as  No.  12 
Hubert-street  on  map;  deed  says  10. 

Stephen  Camhrelling,  sworn. — I  am  a  member  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church. 

Q.  Are  you  intimately  acquainted  with  the  affairs  of  Trinity 
Church  ?    A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  am. 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  has  done  its 
utmost  to  make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation 


8 


114 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


available  for  the  founding,  or  support  of  charitable,  religious  or 
educational  institutions  ?    A.  I  should  think  not. 

Q.  Upon  what  facts  do  you  found  your  opinion  ?  A.  From 
their  not  having  erected  or  assisted  in  the  erection  of  free 
churches  in  the  city,  and  in  not  assisting  feeble  churches  re- 
quiring aid. 

Q.  From  whom  was  this  property  derived  1  A.  I  would  refer 
to  the  charter  and  grants. 

Q.  What  has  been  the  effect  of  the  law  of  1814  upon  the 
church  and  upon  the  acts  of  Trinity  Church  I  A.  It  has  been 
nnfavorable,  undoubtedly. 

Q.  In  what  respect  1  A.  It  would  seem  since  the  passage  of 
that  act,  the  course  of  Trinity  Church  has  been  much  less  liberal 
to  the  church  in  the  city  of  New-York ;  the  law  has  been  the  sub- 
ject of  complaint  by  Episcopalians  generally  in  New-York,  aside 
from  Trinity  Church  and  her  chapels,  and  the  Episcopal  com- 
munity has  not  acquiesced  in  it. 

James  W.  Webb,  sworn. — I  am  a  member  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church.  Am  not  acquainted  with  any  facts  relative  to 
the  passage  of  the  law  of  1814  and  its  effects  upon  the  church. 
I  am  editor  of  the  Courier  &  Enquirer,  and  have  been  for  29 
years  I  wrote  the  editorial  article  in  the  Courier  of  this  mor- 
ning relative  to  Trinity  Church,  and  also  the  article  to  which  it 
refers,  copied  from  the  Courier  of  1844. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  converse  with  Chancellor  Kent  relative  to 
the  law  of  1814,  as  to  its  constitutionality'?  A.  I  had  repeated 
conversations  with  the  late  Chancellor  Kent  in  relation  to  the 
constitutionality  of  the  law  referred  to,  in  course  of  which  he 
distinctly  expressed  the  opinion  that  he  had  become  satisfied 
that  it  was  unconstitutional,  although  he  had  voted  in  favor  of 
it  in  the  Council  of  Revision.  He  further  said  that  if  there  was 
any  necessity  for  it,  he  would  give  me  at  any  time  a  certificate 
to  that  efiect. 

R.  S.  Wiley,  sworn. — Reside  in  the  city  of  New-York;  am  pas- 
tor of  Christ's  church ;  was  not  a  clergyman  of  the  church  at  the 
time  of  the  grant  from  Trinity  church;  my  connection  with  the 
church  commenced  in  Sept.  1855. 


ON  AFFAIBS  OF  TRINITT  CHURCH. 


115 


Q.  Can  you  state  any  facts  in  relation  to  the  grants  of  aid  to 
the  church  by  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church  1    A.  I  cannot. 

Robert  S.  Howland^  sworn — I  am  a  minister  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church ;  am  rector  of  the  church  of  the  Holy  Apostles. 

Q.  Do  you  tUnk  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church  has  done  its 
utmost  to  make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation 
available  for  the  founding  or  support  of  charitable,  religious,  or 
educational  institutions?  ^  A.  I  think  it  has  been  their  inten- 
tion; I  do  not  think  they  have  done  as  much  as  they  should  for 
the  building  of  free  churches,  or  for  the  aid  of  feeble  churehes. 
My  church  received  $6,000  from  Trinity  church  and  gave  the 
usual  mortgage. 

John  D.  Wolf e  recalled — Q.  Who  conducted  the  elections ^when 
you  were  vestryman  in  Trinity  church?  A.  The  rector,  Dr. 
Berrian.  In  addition  to  the  requirements  of  the  law  they  re- 
quired that  all  persons  desiring  to  vote  should  give  previous 
written  notice  of  such  desire  to  the  rector.  I  objected  to  that 
requirement  when  a  vestryman;  I  considered  it  an  obstacle  to 
voting  contrary  to  the  law, 

Q.  In  applications  for  aid  has  Trinity  church,  in  your  opinion, 
favored  those  whose  party  views  and  actions  were  similar  to  her 
own?  A.  I  accused  them  openly  of  being  governed  by  party 
views  in  granting  aid  to  churches. 

Q.  Have  they  refused  aid  on  the  avowed  ground  that  the 
views  of  the  applicants  were  not  coincident  with  their  own  ? 
A.  I  think  they  did  decline  on  that  ground,  as  far  as  their  gifts 
extend;  the  chui-ch  is  divided  into  two  parties  of  high  church 
and  low  church,  and  the  aid  almost  universally  granted  is  to 
churches  known  as  high  church. 

Q.  What  was  done  with  applications  for  aid  from  those  repre- 
senting low  churches  ?   A.  Almost  universally  declined. 

Q.  Will  you  please  look  over  the  list  now  handed  to  you  of 
persons  represented  to  be  corporators  of  Trinity  church?  Do 
you  see  on  it  the  names  of  any  considerable  number  of  deceased 
persons,  or  of  persons  who  have  removed  from  this  city  ?  A.  On 
the  list  of  "corporators  who  are  communicants  and  not  pew- 


116 


HEPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


holders"  do  not  know  of  any  of  them  having  deceased'}  on  ibe 
list  of  "  corporators  as  pew-holders"  there  are  some  names  of 
deceased  persons,  and  of  persons  residing  out  of  the  city. 

W.  JI.  jMuhle7iberg,  sworn.— I  am  a  minister  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church;  have  been  in  the  ministry  for  thirty-nine 
years— for  ten  of  which  I  have  been  in  the  eity  of  New-York. 

Q.  How  many  free  Protestant  Episcopal  churches  have  been, 
established  as  such  by  Trinity  church  in  this  city^  within  the  last 
five  years  1  A,  Trinity  church  has  not  established  any  free 
churches  in  this  city  within  the  last  five  years, 

Q.  Has  Trinity  church  clergymen,  employed  as  ministers  at 
large,  whose  special  duty  it  is  to  look  after  the  spiritual  wants 
of  the  poor  and  destitute  among  the  "inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
STew-Yorkjin  communion  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  V* 
A.  I  do  not  know  that  she  maintains  any  ministers, besides  those 
oflSciating  in  her  own  churches;  but  she  partially  supports  otliers,. 
who  are  ministers  of  free  churclxes,  in  this  city. 

Q.  Has  the  aid  granted  to  free  churches  been  at  all  commen- 
surate with  its  ability  ?  A.  So  far  from  doing  her  utmost,  in 
extending  aid  to  feeble  churches,  and  in  providing  for  the  reli- 
gious and  moral  improvement  of  the  poor  of  the  city,  in  these 
respects,  I  think  she  has  fallen  far  short  of  her  ability,  reck- 
oning her  ability  at  what  it  is  generally  understood  to  be.  In 
a  large  section  of  the  eastern  part  of  the  city,  with  a  poor 
and  crowded  population,  and  where  free  churches  are  especially 
needed,  not  more  than  one  Episcopal  church  has  been  erected 
within  the  last  twenty  years;  while  recently,  Trinity  church  has 
erected  a  chapel,  at  a  cost  for  which  three  or  four  churches  could 
have  been  built,  equally  substantial  and  capacious  with  the  said 
chapel,  and  this  in  a  quarter  of  the  city  in  which  the  people  are 
able  to  build  churches  for  themselves.  Missionaries,  endeav- 
oring to  establish  free  churches  in  the  above  mentioned  eastern 
district,  and  struggling  to  support  themselves  while  so  doing, 
have  frequently  complained  of  the  little  encouragement  afforded 
them  by  Trinity  church  in  eflfecting  their  object.  Trinity  church 
has  made  no  permanent  provision  for  her  own  poor — her  desti- 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH.  . 

• 

tute  widows,  orphans  and  sick,  I  mean  in  the  way  of  founding 
institutions  for  their  benefit;  with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of 
Trinity  school.  The  aid  extended  by  Trinity  church  to  feeble 
churches,  or  congregations,  is  granted  as  a  favor,  and  in  most 
instances,  (so  far  as  I  am  informed,)  not  until  after  much  solici- 
tation on  the  part  of  those  to  whom  it  is  given.  The  foregoing 
are  notorious  facts;  and^as  such  I  have  stated  them,  and  not  on 
any  knowledge  peculiar  to  myself  in  the  premises- 
Adjourned  to  20th  inst.,  10,  A.  M. 

20th  Dec,  1856,  committee  met,  present  all  the  members. 

Frederick  S.  Winston^  sworn — In  answer,  has  been  a  resident 
of  IVew-York  thirty-one  years;  am  president  of  the  Mutual  Life 
Insurance  company,  of  New-York, 

Q.  Does  your  company  loan  money  on  bond  and  mortgage  in 
this  city?  A,  We  have  about  $3,000,000  on  bond  and  mortgage 
in  this  city. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  the  maps  of  the  property  of  Trinity 
church  here  exhibited,  and  the  valuations  made  by  order  of  this 
committee  by  Messrs.  Aldrich,  Ebner  L.  Ely,  Jno.  M,  Dodd  and 
John  W.  Ritch  1    A.  I  have, 

Q.  What  is  the  reputation  of  the  appraisers,  above  named,  for 
judgment  and  knowledge  as  to  the  present  value  of  real  estate  in 
those  parts  of  the  city,  where  said  property  is  situated.  A.  They 
are  considered  men  of  good  judgment  and  are  familiar  with 
property  in  those  parts  of  the  city.  They  are  frequently  con- 
sulted or  employed  by  persons  having  money  to  loan  on  or  to 
invest  in  real  estate.    They  are  experts. 

Q.  What  effect  has  the  disposal  of  large  masses  of  property  by 
lease,  upon  the  value  of  contiguous  real  estate  held  by  individu- 
als or  others;  upon  the  increase  of  commercial  facilities,  manu- 
facturing or  other  improvements,  the  augmentation  of  taxable 
property  and  the  employment  of  mechanical  and  other  labor? 
A.  It  operates  generally  as  a  dead  weight  upon  the  value  and  pro- 
ductiveness of  such  contiguous  real  estate.  It  has  the  effect  of 
depressing  the  value  of  contiguous  property  by  preventing  im- 


118 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMWTITTEB. 


provements.  It  tends  to  cheapen  and  keep  down  the  character 
of  improvements  for  commercial  and  other  purposes,  both  upon 
the  leased  property  and  the  real  estate  adjoining,  and  by  these 
means  throws  the  great  burden  of  taxation  upon  other  property 
held  in  fee,  and  necessarily  furnishes  less  employment  for  the 
laboring  and  mechanical  classes. 

Q.  Has  the  value  ot  the  real  estate  of  Trinity  church  greatly  in- 
creased since  1814  ?  A.  It  has;  some  of  it  very  greatly  in  value, 
most  of  it  largely. 

Q.  What  was  the  population  of  the  city  of  New- York  in  1814? 
A.  About  105,000. 

Q.  What  in  1855 1    A.  629,850,  or  sixfold  increase. 

Q.  How  many  free  Protestant  Episcopal  Churches  are  there 
in  this  city?  A.  The  following  are  so  considered:  Holy  Com- 
munion, Epiphany,  Holy  Innocents,  Nativity,  Memorial,  St. 
Michael's.  I  know  of  no  other,  unless  the  church  in  Beekman- 
street  be  so  considered.  Most  of  these  churches  are  feeble,-and 
exist  by  the  unwearied  appeals  for  assistance  and  support  made 
by  their  ministers  from  week  to  week  upon  the  charity  and 
liberality  of  private  individuals  who  are  members  of  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church. 

Q.  How  many  have  been  established  as  such  by  Trinity 
Cnurch  1  A.  None  that  I  know  of.  She  aided  in  the  establish- 
ment of  two  in  connection  with  the  City  Mission  Society  j  but 
they  were  subsequently  abandoned,  and  the  property  of  one  re- 
verted to  Trinity  church,  I  believe. 

Q.  Has  Trinity  Church  clergymen  employed  as  ministers  at 
large,  whose  special  duty  it  is  to  look  after  the  spiritual  wants 
of  the  poor  and  destitute  among  the  "  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New-York,  in  communion  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
of  the  State  of  New-York  ?"  A.I  know  of  no  clergymen  so 
employed  by  Trinity  Church,  or  of  any  disconnected  with  the 
services  of  Trinity  Church  and  her  chapels.  I  think  there  are 
independent  Episcopal  cliurches  in  this  city,  with  little  or  no 


ON  AFFAIKS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


119 


endowment,  which  contribute  more  in  money  and  labor  to  teach 
and  preach  religion  through  our  church  at  home  and  abroad, 
and  whose  benefactions  reach  a  larger  amount  in  aid  of  Christian 
and  benevolent  objects,  than  those  of  Trinity  Church  and  its 
chapels,  with  the  vast  endowment  it  controls. 

Q.  Has  Trinity  Church  ever  established  hospitals  or  other 
institutions  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor  ?  A.  Trinity  Church  has 
never,  to  my  knowledge,  established  any  hospital  or  public  insti- 
tution for  the  spiritual  or  temporal  benefit  of  the  poor  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  or  otherwise. 

Q.  What  increase  has  there  been  in  the  number  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Churches  in  the  last  ten  years  1  A.  I  doubt 
whether  there  are  any  more  Protestant  Episcopal  Churches  in 
the  city  now  than  there  were  ten  years  ago.  The  increase  has 
been  very  slight,  if  any. 

Q.  What  increase  in  the  city  churches  in  accomodation  for 
the  poor  ?  A  I  think  but  little  additional  accommodation,  if 
any. 

Q.  What  increase  in  the  city  population  in  that  time  1 
A.  Probably  over  200,000. 

Q.  Has  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  increased  in  numbers 
in  that  time?    A.  It  has  largely  increased. 

Q.  Has  the  poor  increased  in  proportion  ?  A.  They  have  kept 
pace  fully. 

Q.  What  increase  in  the  value  of  the  property  of  Trinity 
church  in  that  time.    A.  I  think  it  has  more  than  doubled. 

Q.  Is  there,  or  is  there  not,  in  the  city  a  prevailing  sentiment 
against  appropriations  by  Trinity  church  to  country  churches  1 
A.  There  is  not.  The  complaint  against  Trinity  church  is  not 
for  what  she  has  given,  but  for  what  she  has  withheld. 

R.  S.  Howland,  re-called. — Q.  Have  you  made  any  application 
yourself  to  Trinity  church  in  behalf  of  some  poor  church?  A.  Two 
and  a  half  years  ago,  I  made  a  proposition  to  Trinity  church 
to  give  $20,000,  $15,000  for  a  free  church,  and  $5,000  for  schools 
connected  with  it,  if  they  would  contribute,  I  think  it  was, 
$10,000  to  the  same  purpose.    They  took  no  notice  of  it  ;  they 


120  REPORT  OF  SELKCT  COMMITTEE 

did  not  even  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  my  communication. 
One  year  ago  I  renewed  this  proposition  in  another  form.  Tlie 
application  was  for  about  $15,000  for  aid  to  two  churches,  the 
Holy  Apostles'  and  St.  Timothy's,  offering  at  the  same  time,  on 
my  part,  a  similar  amount.  The  standing  committee  of  the 
vestry  have  reported  against  accepting  my  proposition,  but  the 
vestry  have  it  still  under  consideration.  Members  of  the  vestry 
have  stated  that  they  reported  against  it,  from  the  fact  that  they 
had  no  tunds.  While  this  was  pending  they  have  expended 
$15,000  for  the  improvement  of  St.  John's  chapel  and  the  schools 
connected  with  it.  The  two  churches  for  which  I  applied  were 
very  poor  and  needy,  and  while  my  application  has  been  pend- 
ing they  have  finished  an  expensive  chapel  in  Twenty-sixth-st., 
for  a  neighborhood  that,  it  is  my  impression,  was  able  to  build 
one  for  themselves. 

Q.  Do  you  receive  any  salary  in  the  church  where  you  are 
rector  1  A.  I  do  not  receive  any;  my  services  are  rendered 
gratuitously,  in  addition  to  which,  I  pay  from  $500  to  $1,200 
annually  towards  supporting  the  assistant-minister  and  mission- 
ary connected  with  the  church,  because  my  congregation  are  not 
able  to  support  one  minister. 

Q.  What  is  the  nature  of  the  advances  made  by  Trinity  church 
to  other  churches  1  A.  When  Trinity  church  makes  advances 
to  other  churches,  it  is  my  impression  it  is  done  as  benefactions; 
it  is  treated  by  them  as  a  charity  from  them,  rather  than  as  an 
application  of  the  trust  funds  to  which  all  the  churches  have  a 
right. 

Q.  Do  you  think  there  is  a  prevailing  sentiment  among"Epis- 
copalians  in  this  city  against  the  distribution  of  the  funds  of 
Trinity  church  among  country  churches'?   A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  possession  of  this  property  by  Trinity 
church,  managed  as  it  is,  prevents  the  growth  of  the  church  in 
this  city  1    A.  I  think  it  does. 

G.  J.  Geer,  sworn:  I  am  an  Episcopal  clergyman  in  the  city 
of  New-York.  I  am  assistant  minister  in  the  church  of  the  Holy 
Apostles,  and  rector  elect  of  St.  Timothy's  church,  in  Fifty-first 
street.    In  the  whole  region  of  the  northwestern  part  of  the 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


121 


city,  from  Twenty-sixth  street  up  to  St.  Michael's,  Bloomingdale, 
I  am  the  only  resident  minister  that  I  am  aware  of,  who  sus- 
tains parochial  relations  of  the  Episcopal  church.  The  spiritual 
destitution  throughout  that  portion  of  the  city,  is  awful  I  was 
elected  rector  of  St.  Timothy's  one  year  ago  last  November  or 
October.  During  that  time,  I  have  supplied  them  with  Sunday 
services,  and  have  answered  such  calls  as  have  been  made  upon 
me  for  parochial  duty,  in  that  whole  neighborhood,  from  Twenty- 
sixth-street  to  Fifty-fifth-street.  There  is  a  small  church  in  the 
Eighth  avenue,  near  Fortieth-street,  the  church  of  the  Advent, 
the  rector  of  which  resides  down  town;  so,  that  for  the  minis- 
trations to  the  poor,  there  is  no  other  provision  made.  It  has 
been  represented  to  Trinity  church  that  we  are  ready  to  begin  an 
earnest  parochial  work  for  the  upper  portion  of  this  section  of 
which  I  speak,  and  we  only  wait  for  the  acceptance  of  the  propo- 
sition of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Howland.  This  proposition  still  remains 
unaccepted,  and  at  their  last  meeting,  I  am  informed  the  standing 
committee  unanimously  reported  against  it.  The  reason  assigned 
by  various  members  of  the  vestry,  was  want  of  ability;  and  in- 
dividual members  of  the  vestry  acknowledged  the  proposition 
the  noblest  ever  made  to  it.  During  this  year,  I  think  in  the 
spring,  a  letter  was  addressed  to  Trinity  church,  by  a  warden 
and  the  vestrymen  of  St.  Timothy's  church,  calling  their  atten- 
tion to  this  proposition  of  Mr.  Howland,  and  setting  forth  the 
great  want  of  a  church  in  that  neighborhood;  which  letter  has 
never  received  the  slightest  attention,  that  we  are  aware  of. 

In  my  judgment,  the  selling  of  Zion  church,  or  the  permitting 
it  to  pass  out  of  the 'hands  of  the  Episcopal  church,  in  this  city, 
was  indicative  of  a  want  of  serious  concern  for  the  spiritual  wants 
of  that  most  destitute  portion  of  the  city,  on  the  part  of  Trinity 
church.  Zion  church  was  located  in  the  five  points.  I  was  in- 
formed that  the  clergy  of  the  city  did  make  great  efforts  to  have 
the  church  retained.  I  have  been  informed  that  the  Roman 
Catholics  have  become  possessed  of  it.  Trinity  church  gives  to 
St.  Timothy's  church,  two  hundred  dollars  as  a  stipend,  which 
she  can  cut  off  at  any  moment. 

Jilfred  B.  Beach,  sworn:  I  am  an  Episcopal  clergyman  in  the 
city  of  New- York — rector  of  St.  Peter's  church,  in  20th-street, 


in 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


My  church  made  application  within  two  years,  to  Trinity  church 
for  aid.  St.  Peter's  church  was  very  much  in  debt,  and  the 
application  was  for  relief  from  that  debt.  A  full  statement  of 
our  debt  of  1 30,000  was  made  to  Trinity  church,  and  aid  asked  to 
relieve  us  from  it;  the  church  is  situated  in  Chelsea,  a  poor  part 
of  the  city;  was  built  in  1836,  and  became  involved,  owing  to 
the  failure  of  those  who  undertook  the  building  Trinity  church 
advanced  to  St.  Peter's  $25,000,  taking  a  mortgage  for  it,  or 
rather  St  Peter's  borrowed  of  Trinity  church,  $25,000  which  she 
first  granted  as  a  loan,  then  on  application  from  St.  Peter's  for 
Trinity  church  to  assume  the  bond,  Trinity  church  agreed  to  let 
the  mortgage  remain,  on  condition  that  Dr.  Moore  who  had  leased 
seven  lots  to  St.  Peter's,  would  convey  the  same  in  fee  to  St. 
Peter's  church,  and  also  that  St.  Peter's  church  would  pay  a 
floating  debt  that  had  accrued,  amounting  to  some  $17,000,  which 
both  Dr.  Moore  and  the  congregation  of  St.  Peter's  did  ;  we 
subsequently  applied  for  further  aid,  which  has  been  refused. 
Application  has  been  made  to  Trinity  church,  by  those  who  had 
given  bonds  to  allow  the  mortgage  held  by  Mr.  Lenox,  to  be  a 
first  mortgage,  which  they  refused,  saying,  if  after  paying  off 
their  mortgage  of  $25,000,  there  was  enough  left  to  pay  Mr.  Lenox 
his  debt  and  one  year's  interest,  they  should  then  apply  the 
balance  on  account  of  interest  on  the  $25,000. 

Mr.  Bradish  will  write  out  his  testimony,  and  hand  it  in,  by 
consent  of  the  committee. 

James  Boorman  affirms. — I  am  a  merchant  of  this  city.  When 
I  was  president  of  the  Hudson  river  railroad  company,  I  bought 
the  lease  of  four  half-lots  on  Chambers-street,  25x50;  they  were 
bought  under  leases,  two  of  which  expired  the  first  of  May  this 
year,  and  two  the  first  of  May  next  year.  The  ground  rent  for 
the  whole,  under  the  leases  which  we  bought,  was  $440.  Last  year 
a  negotiation  was  entered  into  by  our  board  for  the  renewal  of 
those  leases  I  understood  that  first  the  church  talked  of  $4,000 
as  the  rent;  the  committee  subsequently  reported  they  had  raised 
it  to  $5,000.  I  remonstrated  decidedly,  but  against  my  remon- 
strances, the  company  agreed,  in  December,  1855,  to  pay  the 
$5,000  per  year  rent,  which  at  five  per  cent.,  makes  the  fee  of  the 
lots  worth  $100,000. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHTRCH. 


123 


Robert  B.  Min/urn,  of  the  city  of  Xew-Tork,  merchant,  affirms  : 
Q.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church '? 
A.  I  am. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  the  maps  of  the  property  of  Trinity 
Church,  here  exhibited,  and  the  valuation  made  by  order  of  the 
cemmittee,  by  Messrs.  H.  D.  Aldrich,  Abner  L.  Ely,  John  M. 
Dodd,  and  J.  W.  Ritch,  and  what  is  their  reputation  for  judg- 
ment and  knowledge,  as  to  the  present  value  of  real  estate  in 
those  parts  of  the  city,  where  said  property  is  situated  1  A.I 
have  seen  the  maps  to  which  you  refer,  and  I  have  some  knowl- 
edge of  each  of  the  appraisers.  They  are  persons  of  great  res- 
pectability and  well  informed  regarding  the  value  of  real  estate. 
I  consider  them  very  competent  to  make  such  an  appraisal. 

Q  What  effect  has  the  disposing  of  large  masses  of  property 
by  lease  upon  the  value  of  contiguous  real  estate  held  by  indi- 
viduals ?  A.  Leasehold  property  is  generally  not  so  well  im- 
proved as  that  held  in  fee,  and  consequently  the  effect  of  large 
leasehold  estates,  is  usually  not  favorable  to  contiguous  property. 

Q.  Has  the  value  of  the  real  estate  of  Trinity  Church  greatly 
increased  since  1814?  A.  The  lots  now  held  by  Trinity  Church 
are  doubtless  worth  three  or  four  times  as  much  as  they  were  in 
1814,  and  probably  more. 

Q.  How  many  Free  Protestant  Episcopal  Churches  are  there  in 
the  city  ]  A.  I  know  of  ten,  but  most  of  them  are  small  inferior 
buildings,  and  feebly  supported. 

Q.  How  many  have  been  established  as  such  by  Trinity 
Church '{  A.  That  corporation  has  never  to  my  knowledge  built 
a  church  with  free  sittings,  though  they  have  contributed  to 
several  free  churches,  and  they  grant  annual  stipends  to  minis- 
ters of  such  churches. 

Q.  Has  the  aid  granted  to  free  churches  been  at  all  com- 
mensurate with  their  ability  ?  A.  The  aid  given  to  free  churches 
by  Trinity  Church,  certainly  bears  no  proportion  to  the 
magnitude  of  the  estates  confided  to  her  direction,  nor  to  the 
amount  (over  half  a  million  of  dollars,)  which  she  has  expended 
upon  two  churches  for  her  own  use.  That  sum  would  have 
built  many  free  churches.  If  Trinity  Church  would  realize 
annually  a  small  number  of  her  city  lots  as  leases  fall  in,  she 


124 


KEPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


might  so  stimulate  the  erection  of  free  churches  as  to  go  far 
toward  meeting  the  demand  for  tliem.  Individuals  would  co- 
operate in  such  a  measure,  as  is  shown  by  proposals  made  to 
that  corporation  during  the  present  year,  for  the  establishment 
of  two  free  churches  in  destitute  parts  of  the  city,  provided  they 
would  furnish  half  the  cost  j  these  proposals  were  not  accepted 
by  Trinity  Church. 

Q.  What  increase  has  there  been  in  the  city  churches  for  the 
accommodation  of  the  poor  during  the  last  ten  years  1  A.  The 
increase  has  been  very  inconsiderable — nothing,  as  compared 
to  the  increase  of  two  hundred  thousand  in  the  population  of 
the  city  during  that  period.  The  deficiency  of  churches  fur  the 
working  classes  is  shown  from  the  fact  that  in  the  4th,  6th,  13th 
and  14tli  wards,  having  together  a  population  of  one  hundred 
thousand  four  hundred  and  ninety-nine  souls,  there  is  not  a  single 
Episcopal  church;  and  the  8th,  11th  and  16th  wards,  with  a 
-  population  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  thousand  six  hun- 
dred and  twenty-six  souls,  have  each  but  one  Episcopal  cliurch 
edifice.  This  deficiency  of  churches,  and  that  which  is  also  felt 
in  otlier  parts  of  the  city,  is,  in  my  opinioi^,  largely  attributable 
to  the  existence  of  the  Trinity  church  fund.  Individuals 
regarding  that  estate  as  a  trust  committed  to  her  for  the  common 
benefit  of  all  Episcopalians,  especially  the  destitute,  will  not 
relieve  her  from  the  responsibility,  and  so  long  as  that  fund 
remains  unapplied,  I  believe  that  nothing  effectual  will  be  done 
towards  placing  the  services  of  the  Episcopal  church  within 
reach  of  those  who  are  unable  to  provide  them  for  themselves. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  of  any  hostility  to  Trinity  church  on  the 
part  of  Episcopalians  in  the  city  on  account  of  her  donations  to 
country  churches  1  A.  I  am  certain  that  there  is  no  such  hos- 
tility; on  the  contrary,  the  complaint  against  Trinity  church  is 
chiefly  - that  more  of  the  estate  confided  to  her  charge  is  not 
realized  and  applied  efficiently  to  the  extension  of  the  church. 
The  large  class  of  Episcopalians  who  hold  this  view,  are  those 
who  give  most  freely  of  their  own  funds  towards  the  building 
and  support  of  country  churches,  and  they  would  rejoice  to  see 
the  Trinity  fund  applied  extensively  in  that  direction,  especially 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


125 


for  the  erection  of  free  churches.  They  regard  the  existence  of 
such  a  great  endowment,  kept  together  and  constantly  increas- 
ing by  the  rise  of  real  estate,  as  a  calamity,  from  its  tendency  to 
repress  individual  benevolence.  Their  view  is,  that  instead  of 
being  held  for  accumulation,  portions  of  that  property  should 
be  annually  realized  and  applied  to  the  extension  of  the  church 
in  this  city  and  throughout  the  State. 

Q.  Has  the  law  of  the  year  1814,  in  regard  to  Trinity  church, 
been  acquiesced  in  or  not  1  A.I  believe  that  it  has  not  been 
acquiesced  in.  In  1846  a  large  number  of  Episcopalians  united 
in  a  vigorous  elfort  for  its  repeal.  It  is  regarded  as  unjustly 
excluding  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  from  participation  in 
a  common  heritage,  and  as  confining  its  direction  to  a  very  lim- 
ited number  of  persons  who  hold  pews,  or  are  communicants  in 
Trinity  church  or  its  chapels. 

Q.  Is  not  aid  often  rendered  in  the  form  of  a  yearly  allowance 
or  stipend,  to  the  clergyman  of  a  parish  subject  to  be  withdrawn 
at  the  pleasure  of  Trinity  church  ?  What  effect  has  aid  in  this 
form  upon  the  parishes  and  clergymen  so  aided  1  A.  The  prac- 
tice of  annual  stipends  is,  in  my  judgment,  very  injurious,  cre- 
ating a  sense  of  dependence  which  is  calculated  to  impair  the 
energy  and  self-reliance  of  the  clergy  and  their  congregation. 

Stewart  Brown,  sworn :  I  am  a  banker  in  the  city  of  New- York. 

Q.  How  many  free  Protestant  Episcopal  churches  are  there  in 
this  city  1  A.  There  are  some  six  or  eight  free  Protestant  Epis- 
copal churches  in  this  city. 

Q.  How  many  have  been  established  as  such  by  Trinity  church? 
A.  Not  any  that  I  know  of. 

]^Q.  Has  Trinity  church,  clergymen  employed  as  [ministers  at 
large,  whose  special  duty  it  is  to  look  after  the  spiritual  wants 
of  the  poor  and  destitute  among  the  "  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New- York,  in  communion  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church?" 
A.  I  do  not  know  of  her  employing  any. 

Q.  What  increase  has  there  been  in  the  number  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  churches  in  the  last  ten  years  ?  A.  There  have 
been  some  few  additions. 


126 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Q.  What  increase  in  the  city  churches  in  accommodations  for 
the  poor  1  A.  Thei'e  is  a  very  great  want  of  sittings  for  the 
poor  in  the  churches  in  the  city. 

Q.  What  is  the  reputation  of  these  gentlemen  whose  appraise- 
ments have  been  handed  in?  A.  Mr.  Ely  I  know  well.  He  is 
a  very  good  appraiser.    I  think  the  others  are  also. 

Q.  What  effect  has  the  disposing  of  large  masses  of  property 
by  lease,  upon  the  value  of  contiguous  real  estate  held  by  indi- 
viduals ?  A.  The  elfect  is  very  bad,  in  preventing  the  improve- 
ment of  the  adjoining  property  or  of  the  leased  property  itself, 
which,  of  course,  retards  the  improvement  of  the  city  in  that 
neighborhood. 

Q.  Has  the  value  of  the  real  estate  of  Trinity  church  greatly 
increased  since  1814  7    A.  It  has  very  largely  increased. 

Q.  In  application  for  aid  has  Trinity  church,  in  your  opinion, 
favored  those  whose  party  views  and  actions  were  similar  to  her 
own?    A.  Most  decidedly. 

Q.  Have  they  in  any  way  endeavored  to  control  the  free 
opinion  or  acts  of  vestries  or  ministers  who  had  received  or  were 
seeking  aid  for  their  churches  ?    A.I  think  they  have. 

Q.  Have  Episcopalians  in  this  city  objected  to  grants  to 
country  churches?  A.  I  feel  certain  not;  on  the  contrary,  I  be- 
lieve all  who  have  the  best  interest  of  the  church  at  heart 
would  rejoice  to  see  Trinity  church  doing  all  she  could  for  the 
extension  of  religion  and  the  church  throughout  the  State  in 
country  and  city. 

Q.  Do  you  think  Trinity  Church,  in  the  distribution  of  its 
funds,  has  done  all  it  could  for  charitable  and  religious  pur- 
poses ?    A.  I  should  say  very  far  from  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  law  of  1814  has  been  objected 
to  by  Episcopalians  or  acquiesced  in?  A.  It  has  been  objected 
to  by  those  acquainted  with  its  provisions. 

R.  What  do  you  think  the  effect  has  been  upon  the  church 
generally  in  the  city,  by  Trinity  church  holding  this  large  fund? 
A.  To  retard  its  progress;  to  dampen  the  zeal  of  churchmen 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


127 


who  would  otherwise  feel  the  responsibility  and  necessity  of 
doing  the  work  which  they  now  think  it  is  the  duty  of  Trinity 
Church,  with  her  large  ability,  to  do.  I  believe  the  church  in 
this  diocese,  this  day,  would  be  more  prosperous  had  the  fund 
never  existed,  because  it  has  been  so  administered  as  to  prevent 
individuals  from  doing  their  duty. 

Adjourned  sine  die. 


SECOND  REPOUT 


Mr.  Spencer,  from  the  select  committee  to  whom  the  report 
made  by  them  on  the  29th  day  of  January  last,  on  the  report  of 
Trinity  Church  made  to  the  Senate  on  the  19th  day  of  February, 
1856,  was  re-committed,  with  power  to  "  report  by  bill  or  other- 
wise," respectfully 

REPORTS : 

That  though  the  Senate  declined  instructing  the  commitiee  to 
take  further  testimony  in  the  case,  yet  understanding  the  church 
regretted  that  so  little  had  been  made  of  the  opportunity  afforded 
them  in  the  city  of  New-York,  where  the  committee  made  a 
written  communication  to  the  vestry  before  they  commenced 
taking  testimony,  and  the  members  of  the  committee  personally 
invited  them  to  appear  before  them,  and  with  counsel,  deter- 
mined to  afford  them  full  opportunity  to  produce  such  testimony 
as  they  should  now  think  proper  to  bring  before  them,  and  ex- 
pressed their  readiness  to  at  once  proceed  to  the  hearing  ;  but  no 
witnesses  were  produced  before  the  committee  till  the  13th  day 
of  February,  since  which  day  nearly  all  their  time,  when  the  Sen- 
ate was  not  in  session,  till  the  fourth  day  of  March,  has  been 
devoted  to  the  examination  of  witnesses  and  hearing  counsel. 

The  church  was  represented  by  three  counsellors,  of  high 
standing  in  their  profession,  and  one  of  them  a  vestryman  of  the 
church,  and  intimately  acquainted  with  the  affairs  and  proceed- 
ings of  that  corporation. 

9 


130 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Fifteen  witnesses  have  been  examined  before  the  committee 
by  the  counsel,  at  great  length,  all  of  whom  except  two  Bishops, 
and  one  clergyman  recalled,  were  vestrymen  or  clergymen  of 
Trinity  Church.  Mr.  De  Zeng,  the  agent  of  the  Church  at 
Albany,  was  also  examined  as  to  a  single  fact.  Some  interroga- 
tories were  proposed  by  the  committee,  there  being  no  opposing 
counsel,  nor  were  there  any  witnesses  produced  except  on  the 
part  of  the  church.  The  testimony  was  principally  given  in  the 
form  of  replies,  much  of  it  written,  and  evidently  prepared  with 
a  degree  ot  care  worthy  of  the  great  importance  of  the  subject  ; 
and  it  is  presumed,  from  the  connection  of  most  of  the  witnesses 
with  the  corporation  and  their  intimate  knowledge  of  all  its 
affairs,  that  nothing  of  importance  on  the  part  of  the  Church  has 
been  omitted,  from  the  mass  of  testimony  now  laid  before  the 
Senate. 

After  the  conclusion  of  the  evidence,  the  committee  have 
heard  long  and  able  arguments  on  the  facts  and  on  the  law, 
from  two  of  the  three  learned  counsel  employed  by  the  corpora- 
tion and  present  during  the  whole  of  the  examination.  Every 
advantage,  therefore,  has  been  enjoyed  that  could  reasonably  be 
demanded;  still  the  counsel  appear  to  have  thought  it  their 
duty,  in  commencing  their  argument  to  do  what  the  vestry  had 
already  done  in  their  report,  to  protest  against  the  right  of  the 
Senate  to  call  for  any  report  from  the  church  or  to  appoint  any 
committee  to  enquire  into  its  affairs,  and  in  firm,  but  not  disre- 
spectful language,  to  deny  the  authority  of  this  committee  to 
prosecute  the  enquiry  in  which  they  were  then  under  your  ap- 
pointment engaged.  The  committee  supposing  they  were  yield- 
ing to  the  wishes  of  the  church  in  thus  devoting  their  time  to 
hear  the  testimony  she  was  pleased  to  bring  before  them,  would 
have  been  quite  willing  the  objection  should  have  been  made  at 
an  earlier  stage  of  the  proceeding,  but  did  not  think  it  right  then 
to  decline  to  proceed,  and  for  several  days  quiety  listened  also 
to  the  very  long  arguments  of  the  counsel  from  whom  the  objec- 
tion proceeded. 

It  has  been  mentioned  that  during  the  progress  of  the  exami- 
nation, no  counsel  appeared  in  opposition  to  the  corporation  of 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


131 


Trinity  Church.  After  the  testimony  was  closed  a  professional 
gentleman  appeared  in  behalf  of  the  persons  claiming  to  be  ex- 
cluded corporators,  who  participated  in  the  discussion  of  the 
legal  questions  involved,  and  of  those  matters  of  fact  in  relation 
to  which  there  was  no  material  conflict.  The  argument  on  both 
sides  was  full  and  elaborate,  and  the  committee  feel  assured  that 
all  the  questions  at  issue  have  received  a  careful  and  thorough 
investigation. 

The  rights  of  Trinity  Church  under  the  several  grants  of  tiie 
crown  of  England;  and  the  rights  of  those  claiming  to  be  cor- 
porators, were  freely  discussed  by  the  counsel;  and  before 
proceeding  to  speak  of  the  testimony  the  committee  would  briefly 
state  the  conclusions  to  which  they  have  been  led. 

The  right  of  the  corporation,  to  the  property  now  held  by 
Trinity  Church,  was  granted  in  the  charter  of  1697,  (which 
included  the  church  and  cemetery,  or  churchyard,)  and  the  grant 
of  the  King's  tarm,  made  in  1705,  which  included  the  great 
estate  of  said  corporation. 

By  the  original  charter  of  1697,  it  is  declared  "  That  the  afore- 
said church,  (meaning  the  church  erected  previous  to  1697,  on 
the  site  upon  which  Trinity  Church  is  erected,)  erected  and  built 
as  aforesaid,  and  situate  in  or  near  the  street  called  the  Broad- 
way, within  our  said  city  of  New-York,  and  the  ground  there- 
unto adjoining,  inclosed  and  used  for  a  cemetery  or  churchyard, 
shall  be  the  parish  church  and  churchyard  of  the  parish  of 
Trinity  Church,  within  our  said  city  of  New- York,  and  the  same 
is  hereby  declared  to  be  for  ever  separated  and  dedicated  to  the 
service  of  God,  and  to  be  applied  therein,  to  the  use  and  behalj  of 
the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting  and  to  inhabit  within  our 
said  city  ofJ\''ew-  York,  in  communion  of  our  said  Protestant  Church  of 
England.)  as  new  established  by  our  laws,  and  to  no  other  use  or  pur- 
pose whatsoever."  And  it  is  further  declared  that  the  royal  will 
and  pleasure  is  to  make  and  create,  and  the  Rector  of  said  parish, 


132 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


"  logf'/her  with  all,  the  inhahitunts  from  time  to  time  inhabiting  and 
to  inhabit  in  our  said  city  of  JVew-York^  and  in  communion  of  our 
aforesaid  Protestant  Church  of  Englayid,  as  now  established  by  our 
laws,  a  body  corporate,  &c.,"  and  then  follows  the  name  of  the 
corporation  created,  which  is  in  these  words :  "  We  have  or- 
dained, constituted,  and  declared  by  these  presents,  for  us,  our 
heirs  and  successors,  do  ordain,  constitute,  and  declare,  that  he 
(Lord  Eishop  of  London)  and  his  successors,  and  all  such  of  our 
loving  subjects  as  now  are  or  hereafter  shall  be  admitted  into 
the  communion  of  aforesaid  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as 
now  established  by  our  laws,  shall  be  from  time  to  time,  and 
forever  hereafter,  a  body  corporate  and  politique,  in  fact  and 
name,  by  the  name  of  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  our  said  city  of 
JYew-  York,  in  cominunion  of  our  Protesta?it  Church  of  England,  as 
now  established  by  our  /au's." 

It  is  further  declared  that  for  managing  the  aifairs  and  busi- 
ness of  the  corporation,  there  shall  be  annually  elected  two 
church  wardens  and  twenty  vestrymen,  "  by  the  majority  of  votes 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  parish  in  communion,  as  aforesaid.'''' 
The  said  grant  is  recorded  in  the  Secretary's  office,  in  book  of  pa- 
tents, No.  7,  page  82,  &c.,  to  which  the  committee  refer,  and  make 
part  of  their  report.  In  1704,  the  Colonial  Legislature  confirmed 
the  grant  ot  1697,  by  an  act  entitled  "An  act  for  granting  sun- 
dry privileges  and  powers  to  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the 
city  of  New-York,  of  the  communion  of  the  Church  of  England* 
as  by  law  established."  In  the  first  section  of  the  act,  it  is  de- 
clared that  "  the  Rector,  &c.,"  "  and  their  successors  "  be  able  to 
sue,  &.C.,  (here  enumerating  the  powers  of  the  corporation,)  and 
by  section  6  of  said  act,  it  is  enacted  "  That  it  shall  and  may  be 
lawful  for  the  inhabitants  aforesaid  to  assemble  and  meet  together 
on  Tue-'day,  in  Easter  week,  annually,  at  the  said  church,  to 
choose  two  church  wardens  and  twenty  vestrymen,  communicants 
of  the  said  church,  to  serve  and  officiate  for  the  next  ensuing 
year,  by  the  majority  of  the  voice  of  the  said  communicants  so 
met,  and  not  otherwise"  In  17U5,  Queen  Anne,  after  reciting 
the  act  of  1704,  that  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  said  city 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


133 


of  New-York,  in  communion  of  the  church  of  England,  as  by  law 
established,  had  petitioned  for  a  grant  of  the  land  known  as  the 
Queen's  farm,  unto  them  and  their  successors,  for  the  use  of  said 
church,  makes  a  grant  in  these  words  :  "  We  have  given,  granted, 
ratified  and  confirmed,  in  and  by  these  presents,  for  ourself,  our 
heirs,  and  successors,  we  do  give,  grant,  ratify  and  confirm,  unto 
the  said  rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York,  in  com- 
munion ofthechurch  ofEngland,  as  by  lawestablished,  and  their 
successoi-Sj  all  and  singular,  the  said  farm,  &c.,"  "to  have  and  to 
hold  said  farm  unto  the  said  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New-York,  in  communion  with  the  church  of  England,  as  by  law 
established,  and  their  successors  forever."  The  committee  refer 
to  said  grant,  recorded  in  Secretary's  office  in  Book  of  Patents, 
No.  7,  page  338,  &c.  No  further  legislation  was  had  until  after 
the  revolution,  in  relation  to  this  corporation,  and  until  the  act 
of  1784  was  passed,  entitled  "An  act  for  making  such  alterations 
in  the  charter  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  as  to  render 
it  more  conformable  to  the  Constitution  of  the  State."  No  mate- 
rial alterations  were  made  in  the  act  of  1784  affecting  the  origi- 
nal powers  granted  to  the  corporation.  By  section  three  of  s::id 
act,  it  is  enacted  "  that  all  -persons  professing  themselves  members 
of  the  Episcopal  Churchy  who  shall  either  hold,  occupy  or  enjoy, 
a  pew  or  seat  in  the  said  church,  and  shall  regularly  pay  to  the 
support  of  the  said  churcli,  and  such  others  as  shall  in  the  said 
church  partake  of  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  at 
least  once  in  every  year,  being  inhabitants  of  the  city  and  county 
of  New- York,  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  rights,"  &c.  The  said 
section  is  preceded  by  the  following:  Whereas,  doubts  have 
arisen  on  those  parts  of  the  said  charter  and  law  first  above  men- 
tioned, which  speak  of  inhabitants  in  communion  of  the  said  church 
of  England— for  removal  whereof:  §  3.  Be  it  further  enacted,  &c." 

In  1788  the  corporate  name  was  so  altered  as  to  change  the 
title  to  "  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  in 
communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  the  State  of 
New-York." 


134 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


The  next  legislation  was  the  act  of  1814,  by  which  the  title 
was  altered  to  "  the  Rector,  Church-wardens  and  Vestrymen  ol 
Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New- York;"  and  by  section  two 
it  i<!  enacted  "  that  all  male  persons  of  full  age,  who,  for  the 
space  of  one  year  preceding  any  election,  shall  have  been  mem- 
bers of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  Church  aforesaid,  or  of  any 
of  the  chapels  belonging  to  the  same,  and  forming  part  of  the 
same  religious  corporation,  and  who  shall  hold,  occupy  or  en- 
joy a  pew  or  seat  in  Trinity  Church,  or  in  any  of  the  said  chapels, 
or  have  partaken  of  the  holy  communion  therein  within  the  said 
year;  and  no  other  person  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  annu- 
al elections  for  the  chui'ch-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  the  said 
corporation." 

The  complaint  made  is  against  the  provisions  ot  this  section, 
that  it  excludes  from  the  corporators  a  large  body  of  Episco- 
palians, inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  in  communion  with 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  who  are  beneficiaries  under 
the  original  grant  of  1697,  and  that  by  reason  of  cutting  off'  the 
right  granted  to  them  in  the  original  charter,  the  act  of  1814,  is 
void. 

The  committee  "have  come  to  the  following  conclusions  as  to 
the  effect  of  the  law  of  1814,  and  the  rights  of  corporators  un- 
der the  several  grants  and  acts  passed  in  relation  to  the  said  cor- 
poration. 

1st.  That  from  1697  down  to  1814  all  persons  in  communion 
with  the  Church  of  England,  or  the  Episcopal  Church,  being 
inhabitants  of  the  eity  of  New-York,  were  corporators  and  enti 
tied  to  vote  for  wardens  and  vestrymen,  and  under  the  act  of  1784, 
pew  holders  were  entitled  to  the  same  right  until  1814. 

2.  That  the  act  of  1814  excludes  all  such  persons  unless  they 
are  communicants  or  pew  holders  in  the  Church  and  Chapels  of 
Trinity. 

3d.  That  the  Episcopalians  at  large  in  the  city  of  New- York 
had  pre-existing  rights  in  the  property  and  franchises  of  the  cor- 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


135 


poration.  under  the  grants  and  acts  previous  to  1814;  and  the  act 
of  1814  which  assumed  to  divest  those  rights  witliout  their  con- 
sent was  unjust  and  unconstitutional. 

4th.  That  the  Church  and  cemetery  were  by  the  original  grant 
declared  to  be  dedicated  "to  the  use  and  behalf  "  of  the  persons 
claiming  to  have  been  disfranchised  under  the  act  of  1814,  and 
to  the  extent  of  the  Church  and  church  yard,  all  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  city  in  communion  &c.,  were  by  the  terms  of  the 
grant  itself  corporators  and  beneficiaries.  ^ 

5th.  The  property  granted  to  the  Church  by  Queen  Anne,  is 
given  to  the  "Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  in 
communion  with  the  Church  of  England,"  and  is  held  by  the 
corporation  to  the  same  use  as  the  Church  and  Church-yard 
under  the  original  grant.  Especially  is  this  so  when  taken  in 
connection  with  the  act  of  1784  which  declared  that  all  persons 
members  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  either  as  pew  holders,  con- 
tributors or  communicants  being  inhabitants  &c.,  ai-e  entitled  to 
all  the  rights,  privileges,  benefits  and  emoluments,  which  in  and 
by  the  charter  and  law  of  1704  are  designed  to  be  secured  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  city  of  JVew-York,  in  communion  of  the  Church 
of  England. 

It  is  contended  by  the  counsel  for  Trinity  Church  that  the 
Legislature  have  no  power  to  repeal  the  act  of  1814.  We  think 
there  is  no  question  as  to  the  power  existing  in  the  Legislature 
to  repeal.  The  principle  is  undoubtedly  well  settled  that  where 
a  law  is  in  the  nature  of  a  contract,  and  when  absolute  rights 
have  become  vested  under  that  contract,  a  repeal  of  the  law  can- 
not divest  those  rights,  and  a  sovereign  state  has  no  power  to  pro- 
nounce its  acts  so  far  invalid  as  to  affect  a  right  of  property  or 
its  enjoyment  which  has  become  vested.  This  would  be  repug- 
nant to  the  Constitution.  But  inasmuch  as  your  committte  have 
come  to  the  conclusion  to  introduce  a  bill  to  amend  the  act  and 
not  to  provide  for  its  repeal  this  question  does  not  properly  arise. 
By  the  proposed  amendment  the  right  of  the  corporation,  its 
powers  and  franchises  are  not  to  be  disturbed ;  the  corporators  made 
su3h  by  the  act  of  1814  are  still  to  be  left  corporators.  The 


136 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


amendment  proposed  would  restore  the  corporators  who  were 
disfranchised  by  the  act  of  1814,  and  thus  enlarge  the  number 
of  corporators.  The  principles  laid  down  in  the  Dartmouth 
college  case  were  completely  overrode  by  the  act  of  1814.  That 
act  subverted  vested  rights.  The  2d  section  of  the  act  of  1814 
gave  no  new  powers  or  franchises.  Nothing  in  the  section 
which  it  is  proposed  to  repeal  has  any  of  the  qualities  of  a  con- 
tract. By  restoring  the  rights  of  those  who  were  corporators 
under  the  charter,  the  original  grant  will  be  upheld,  the  Consti- 
tution acknowleged,  and  no  injustice  done  to  the  corporators  of 
the  church  who  existed  previous  or  subsequent  to  the  act  of  1814. 
By  denying  the  right  of  the  corporators  made  such  under  the 
original  grant,  the  grant  is  defeated,  the  Constitution  violated, 
and  the  rights  of  the  corporators  utterly  destroyed.  The  objection 
which  is  raised  to  the  proposition  to  allow  "all  the  inhabitants  in 
communion,  &c.,"  to  vote  for  vestrymen,  for  the  reason  that  it  may 
create  tumult  or  confusion,is  one  of  little  weight,  compared  with  a 
right  vested  under  ancient  grants  and  acts.  It  may  become  an 
unwieldy  corporation,  but  in  looking  at  the  right  of  the  benefici- 
aries we  can  hardly  be  called  upon  to  take  into  account  the 
difficulties  which  may  attend  the  annual  elections.  Nor  can  we 
see  that  any  such  difficulties  are  likely  to  arise. 

It  appears  from  the  testimony,  that  the  present  condition  of  the 
Parish  is  one  full  of  spiritual  life  and  activity.  Additions  have 
been  made  to  the  nimiber  of  the  clergy  ;  they  have  been  assigned 
to  specific  fields  of  duty  ;  Sunday  schools,  parochial  schools,  in- 
dustrial schools  have  been  started;  systematic  lay  visiting,  among 
emigrants  and  the  poor  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  her  cliurch 
and  chapels,  has  been  provided  for  ;  and  great  additions  to  her 
congregations  have  resulted  already,  these  labors  being  mainly 
among  the  poor  below  Canal-street.  All  this  good  work  appears 
have  been  done  since  the  resolutions  of  inquiry  passed  the  Senate, 
on  the  13th  of  April,  1855.  resolution:;  had  indeed  been  intro- 
duced into  the  vestry  by  Mr.  Dix,  in  May,  1854,  in  favor  of  such 
a  change,  but  they  were  not  acted  on,  A  committee  of  the 
Vestry  also  appears  to  have  been  appointed  in  the  autumn  of 
1854,  on  the  same  subject,  but  no  result  seems  to  have  fol- 
lowed. The  first  actual  step  was  taken  June  11,  1855,  and 
all  the  rest  has  been  accomplished  since  then.  Your  committee 
do  not  assert,  liowever,  that  this  great  and  happy  change  is  due, 
in  any  degree,  to  the  action  of  the  Senatej  for  the  Rector  declares 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


137 


emphatically  that  "neither  the  fear  nor  the  favor  of  man  had  any. 
thing  to  do  with  it." 

The  substance  of  the  rector's  pamphlet  entitled  Facts  against 
Fancy ^'^  and  also  of  his  Report  to  the  Vestry,  will  be  found  copi- 
ously embodied  in  the  evidence,  with  additions  bringing  the 
account  up  to  the  present  day.  It  appears,  that  in  all  from  the 
beginning,  201  churches  in  this  State  have  been  aided,  more  or 
less,  by  Trinity  Church.  Of  these  41  are  in  the  city  of  New- York, 
89  in  the  rest  of  the  diocese,  and  71  in  western  New- York.  The 
Rector,  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  books,  states  the  whole 
amount  of  money  grants,  since  1814,  to  be  $998,705.60,  which 
does  not  differ  materially  from  the  sum  stated  in  the  late  Report 
of  this  committee.  The  additional  items  include  several  monu- 
ments erected  for  patriotic  purposes. 

The  Rector's  testimony  mentions  that  two  churches  have  been 
"endowed"  within  a  few  years — the  Annunciation  with  |25,000, 
and  the  Church  of  the  Redeemer,  at  Yorkville,  with  $9,000. 
These  "endowments"  were  omitted  from  the  Report  of  the  Vestry, 
and  are  therefore  new  to  your  committee.  In  that  Report,  how- 
ever, the  sura  ot  $26,800  is  set  down  as  paid  to  the  Church  of  the 
Annunciation  "for  its  support," — the  same  phrase  which  describes 
the  ordinary  grants  and  stipends  to  other  churches.  And  in 
Facts  against  Fancy  the  sum  of  $9,000  appears  in  connection  with 
the  Church  of  the  Redeemer,  Yorkville;  not  as  an  "endowment," 
but  as  the  amount  to  which  that  church  is  mortgaged  to  other 
parties,  and  of  which  mortgages  Trinity  has  undertaken  to  pay 
the  interest.  Tlie  omission  therefore  to  mention  these  two  cases 
as  "endowments,"  appears  to  be  the  more  correct. 

The  torpor  that  was  supposed  to  affect  so  largely  the  parish 
and  the  administration  of  the  vestry,  is  strongly  denied.  The 
falling  off  in  contributions  from  the  congregations  is  attributed 
wholly  to  the  changes  of  the  city,  which  have  left  few  of  any 
"wealth  or  condition"  yet  connected  with  Trinity  Church  or  her 
chapels.  The  small  number  of  voters  at  elections  is  regarded  as 
proof  of  the  high  satisfaction  of  the  corporators  with  the  doings 
of  the  vestry,  rather  than  as  an  evidence  of  torpor.  In  the  Ves- 
try itself,  the  supposed  monopoly  of  knowledge  and  power  by  the 
standing  committee  is  declared  not  to  exist.  The  Rector  testi- 
fies that  the  reports  made  by  that  committee  are  overruled  by  the 
Vestry,  "scores  of  times;"  or  as  Mr.  Verplanck  more  quietly  ex- 
presses it,  this  reversal  takes  place  "  sometimes  and  in  unimpor- 


138 


BEPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


tant  matters."  Mr.  Dix  could  not  tell  whether  the  estate  of 
Trinity  Church  is  now  of  much  greater  value  than  at  any  other 
period  ;  giving  as  tlie  reason  of  his  inability,  that  he  "is  not  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Finance  Committee,"  which  is  merely  the  same  Stand- 
ing Committee  acting  under  another  name.  The  annual  statement 
of  the  affairs  of  the  corporators,  it  is  testified,  is  not  printed;  and 
no  report  whatever  is  made  at  any  time  to  the  corporators.  The 
Rector  is  the  only  one  of  the  nine  clergymen  of  the  parish,  who 
has  a  seat  in  the  vestry. 

The  charge  of  partizanship  in  making  grants,  is  repudiated  in 
very  decisive  and  indignant  terms.  It  is  due  to  the  Rector  to 
place  prominently  in  this  report  his  protestation  in  regard  to  this 
charge.  He  says  :  "  As  a  christian  man  and  a  christian  minister, 
I  declare  that  I  have  never  heard  one  which  appears  to  be  more 
unfounded  and  unjust.  I  have  never  heard  a  syllable  from  any 
member  of  that  body,  in  any  application  before  them,  which  would 
warrant  the  charge.'' 

Mr.  Dix  strongly  denies  that  party  divisions  have  ever  been 
alluded  to  in  connection  with  applications  for  aid  ;  and  adds,  that 
he  cannot  be  deceived  in  thus  estimating  the  principles  of  action 
in  the  vestry,  except  "  upon  the  hypothesis  of  a  deptli  of  dissim- 
ulation on  their  part,  and  an  obtuseness  of  perception  on 
his  own,  too  gross  for  the  largest  credulity."  Mr.  Skidmore 
would  resign  his  place  as  a  member  of  the  standing  committee  if 
he  thought  an  application,  otherwise  meritorious,  should  be  re- 
jected on  the  ground  of  its  being  "  low  Church."  Mr.  Moore, 
however,  admits,  somewhat  of  personal  partiality  in  the  making 
or  withholding  of  grants,  as  being  inseparable  from  human  nature. 
On  examining  the  records  of  votes  in  the  diocesan  convention  for 
a  series  of  years,  it  appears  from  Dr.  Haight's  evidence,  that  of 
the  sixty-six  Churches  mortgaged  to  Trinity,  eight  have  at  one 
time  or  other  voted  against  her,  and  that  of  the  130  aided  by  her 
at  one  time  or  another,  not  so  many  as  30  are  on  the  record  as  op- 
posing her  in  the  diocesan  convention.  It  is  testified,  also,  that 
stipends  have  been  taken  away  from  low  Church  parishes,  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  wealthy  enough  to  need  them  no  longer. 
In  connection  with  this  charge  of  partisanship,  no  explanation  is 
given  of  the  extraordinary  disproportion  of  the  grant  to  tlie  Church 
of  the  Annunciation ;  nor  of  the  great  difference  between  the 
treatment  of  St.  Luke's  and  St.  Matthew's.  Both  of  these  last  are 
testified  to  have  been  poor,  unable  to  do  without  assistance,  and 


OS  AFTAIRS  CF  TRISITT  CHTTBCH. 


139 


to  be  surTounded  by  the  property  of  the  corporation  ;  yet  one  is 
kept  up  by  large  grants  amounting  at  present  to  §-2^oO  a  year, 
and  in  the  other  case  property  worth  $15,000,  with  an  incum- 
brance of  only  $1,300  is  sacrificed  without  any  grant,  when  half 
the  amount  given  to  St.  Luke's  would  hare  been  enough  to  sup- 
ply all  that  was  needed. 

Among  all  the  stipends  now  and  of  late  years  granted,  the  only 
one  that  is  stated  in  the  evidence,  to  be  given  to  a  low  Church 
clergyman,  amounts  to  $300  a  year. 

Repeated  efforts  are  made  to  do  away  with  the  idea,  that "  Trin- 
ity church  has  never,  at  any  time,  established  or  endowed  any 
institution  of  charity  or  benevolence,  even  for  her  own  poor." 
In  this  connection,  ihe  endowment  of  Columbia  College  a  cen- 
tury ago,  the  endowment  of  the  society  for  the  promotion  of  re- 
ligion and  learning,  and  also  of  Trinity  school,  both  before  1814, 
and  the  grant  to  Hobart  Free  College  of  $50,000,  not  many  years 
since,  are  chiefly  relied  upon;  although,  from  the  fact  that  men- 
tion was  made  of  institutions  of  learning "  as  distinct  from 
those  of  "  charity  or  benevolence,"  it  was  manifest  that  educa- 
tional institutions  were  not  referred  to.  The  grants  to  African 
and  diocesan  missions,  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  belonging  to 
this  department  of  operations.  Nothing  else  is  mentioned,  how- 
ever, as  having  been  done  previous  to  the  resolutions  of  enquiry 
in  1855.  Since  then,  mention  is  made,  in  this  connection,  of  the 
industrial  and  parish  schools,  the  lay  agents  in  visiting,  the  free 
burials  in  the  cemetery,  the  collections  in  the  churches,  and  the 
communion  alms,  as  well  as  the  Ladies'  Dorcas  sewing  society 
for  the  poor  :  all  very  excellent  in  their  way.  Eut  to  speak  of 
these  as  proving  that  "  Trinity  Church  has  established  or  endow- 
ed institutions  of  charity  or  benevolence,"  is  using  language  in  a 
sense  somewhat  remote  from  its  ordinary  meaning.  What  seems 
nearer  to  the  point,  is  the  manner  in  which  the  lands  now  held 
by  St.  Luke's  Hospital  were  obtained. 

A  claim  upon  land  at  the  foot  of  Duane  street,  which  the  city 
corporation  sold  to  the  Erie  R.  R.  Company,  was  released  by 
Trinity  in  consideration  of  lots  high  up  the  Fifth  Avenue,  given 
to  St.  George  the  Martyr,  for  a  hospital.    St.  George  the  Martyr 


140 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


being  unable  to  build  within  the  time  specified,  the  land  was 
passed  over  to  St.  Luke's  Hospital,  as  the  only  available  means 
of  preventing  its  total  loss  to  the  Church  by  lapsing  back  to  the 
city.  This  has  never  appeared  in  any  published  lists  of  grants 
made  by  the  Vestry,  the  title  of  the  lands  proceeding  directly 
from  the  city;  but  it  is  claimed,  and  justly,  as  being  virtuilly 
derived  from  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church. 

It  will  appear,  from  a  careful  examination  of  the  mass  of  evi- 
dence presented  by  Trinity  Church,  that  every  point  of  impor- 
tance set  forth  in  the  previous  report  of  your  committee,  is  here 
abundantly  corroborated. 

Additional  evidence  proves  the  difficulty  in  obtaining  a  copy 
of  the  list  of  corporators,  only  one  copy  appearing  to  have  been 
ever  given,  and  that  not  until  after  a  formal  vote  of  the  Vestry. 
The  list  is  stated  to  be  inaccurate  also,  Mr.  Verplanck  believing 
that  "  many"  names  are  omitted  from  the  list  of  persons  entitled 
to  be  entered. 

No  contradiction  is  offered  to  the  statement  in  your  Com- 
mittee's report  as  to  the  singular  pew-leases  first  given  at  Trinity 
Chapel.  The  explanation  is,  in  substance,  that  it  was  a  measure 
of  over  prudence,  adopted  in  order  to  prevent  the  intrusion  of 
pew  holders  who  *'  had  no  sympathy"  with  the  Vestry.  The 
measure  was  condemned  at  the  time  by  some  of  the  Vestry  them- 
selves, and  is  defended  now  by  none. 

It  is  testified  that  both  before  and  after  1814,  the  claim  has 
been  made  by  one  or  more  members  of  the  other  city  congrega- 
tions, of  the  right  under  the  charter,  to  vote  at  the  annual  elec- 
tion of  wardens  and  vestrymen ;  but  that  the  parties  so  claiming 
have  not  at  any  time  commenced  an  action  at  law  for  the  en- 
forcetaent  of  their  claim.  A  copy  of  the  resolution  passed  by 
the  Vestry  in  1812,  is  included  in  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Dix,  from 
which  it  appears  that  the  Vestry  excluded  all  the  members  of 
the  other  parishes,  of  their  own  motion,  first;  and  then  applied 
to  the  Legislature  for  the  legal  power  to  do  so,  afterwards. 

Instead  of  showing  that  the  policy  of  the  corporation  has  been 
"  unvarying,"  as  the  Vestry  at  first  reported,  the  evidence  proves 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


141 


that  the  policy  has  been  changed;  that  the  era  of  change  was,  as 
asserted  by  your  Committee,  the  year  1814;  and  that  this  change 
is  now  openly  avowed  and  defended  as  being  wise  and  beneficial. 
But  more  of  this  hereafter. 

Much  stress  is  laid  upon  the  debt,  as  a  restraint  upon  the 
liberal  desires  of  the  corporation,  this  debt  being  now — after  de- 
ducting productive  mortgages — somewhat  less  than  half  a  mil- 
lion ot  dollars.  This  debt  is  pleaded  as  causing  the  inability  to 
accept  the  noble  proposition  referred  to  in  the  report  of  your 
committee,  as  well  as  incapacitating  them  to  grant  many  other 
applications.  The  increase  of  the  debt  during  the  past  ten  years 
does  not  appear  to  be  so  much  as  the  cost  of  the  new  chapel,  a 
building,  however,  which  seems  to  have  proved  much  more  ex- 
pensive than  was  originally  intended.  The  Avhole  present 
amount  of  the  debt,  after  deducting  the  productive  mortgages,  is 
more  than  equaled  by  the  cost  of  the  parish  church  and  the 
new  chapel  united.  During  the  past  ten  years,  the  aggregate  of 
annual  deficits  is  set  down  as  $273,597.25;  the  grants  during 
the  same  time  amounting  to  |288,141.05. 

The  deficits  have  been  met  by  sales  of  real  estate.  The 
charge  of  accumulation  is  denied  on  the  ground  that  accumula- 
tion means  the  reinvesting  a  portion  of  income  as  an  addition  to 
the  principal — a  sense  in  which  it  does  not  appear  that  the 
charge  was  made.  The  parochial  expenses,  it  is  testified,  cannot 
be  diminished,  and  rather  need  to  be  increased.  The  salaries 
of  the  clergy  are  not  extravagant,  being  exceeded  by  those  of 
St.  George's,  Calvary  and  Grace  churches. 

But  notwithstanding  all  these  deficits,  this  growing  "  debt'' 
and  consequent  "  inability,"  there  is  a  unanimous  agreement 
among  the  witnesses  that  the  gross  value  of  the  estate  has  been 
steadily  rising,  and  is  higher  now  than  ever  before.  No  attempt 
whatever  is  made  to  show  that  the  valuation  of  the  church  estate 
as  embodied  in  the  report  of  your  Committee,  is  too  high.  The 
only  reduction  claimed  on  the  total  of  the  productive  estate  is 
in  the  matter  of  the  allowance  to  be  made  on  account  of  leases 
yet  to  run. 

But  the  committee  deem  it  unnecessary  to  go  into  any  calcu- 
lations of  the  value  of  leases  or  of  other  deductions,  the 


142 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


resolutions  of  the  Senate,  called  upon  the  Church  to  state  the 
estimated  value  of  its  real  estate  "irrespective  of  the  leases" — 
this  not  having  been  done,  the  committee  have  endeavored  to 
supply  the  omission,  by  taking  the  valuation  of  competent  ap- 
praisers as  stated  in  their  former  report  at  $6,087,050;  and 
adding  to  this  $400,000,  the  price  placed  upon  the  St.  John's 
Park  property,  making  together,  |6,487,050.  This  is  exclusive 
of  personal  property,  of  which  the  Cliurch  reports  a  large 
amount,  but  which  was  not  called  for  by  the  Senate,  nor  was 
the  Church  called  upon  to  report  the  amount  of  their  indebted- 
ness, which  appears  to  be  very  inconsiderable,  after  deducting 
the  "productive  mortgages"  held  by  the  corporation,  and  taking 
into  view  the  value  of  its  property,  much  of  which  can  be  con- 
verted into  money  at  very  short  notice.  As  to  the  gross  valua- 
tion here  stated,  the  committee  do  not  understand  the  Church  to 
deny  its  correctness. 

The  striking  discrepancies  as  to  the  value  of  certain  lots  in  the 
report  of  the  corporation,  compared  with  the  actual  prices  at 
sale  or  on  reletting,  are  excused  as  having  been  left  uncorrected 
"by  inadvertence;"  the  report  being  several  months  in  course 
of  preparation.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  excuse  is  true.  But 
if  the  whole  report  was  to  be  based  on  the  assessors'  estimates,  it 
does  not  appear  upon  what  principle  a  correction  could  have 
been  made  in  those  few  cases,  without  betraying  the  striking 
difference  between  the  two  modes  of  calculation. 

The  Church  mortgages  are  strongly  stated,  by  all  the  witnesses 
who  speak  of  them,  to  be  taken  only  "to  secure  to  the  permanent 
use  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States,  the 
Church  buildings  and  property  upon  the  security  of  which"  the 
loans  were  obtained  from  Trinity  Church.  It  is  denied  that  they  are 
regarded  as  properly  a  debt  at  all,  though  it  is  in  evidence  that 
they  were  reported  as  such  in  1854.  The  loans  thus  made  are 
looked  upon  as  absolute  grants.  Yet  it  is  testified  that  in  two 
cases,  those  of  the  City  Mission  Society  and  St.  Peter's  Church, 
the  loans,  at  first  made  were  purely  "business  transactions,"  and 
"in  no  sense  a  gift."    In  the  case  of  St.  Peter's,  too,  the  repay- 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH.  i-^O 

ment  of  the  loan  was  at  first  guarranteed  by  the  personal  bonds  of 
the  members  of  that  parish;  these  being  afterwards  surrendered, 
however,  the  mortgage  then  took  the  ordinary  form.  No  expla- 
nation is  given  of  the  fact  that  the  mortgages  held  by  Trinity 
over  the  old  Zion  Church,  and  the  old  Christ  Church,  did  not 
"secure  to  the  permanent  use  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church" 
those  buildings  and  property.  They  were  sold,  one  to  the 
Romanists  and  the  other  to  secular  uses.  Trinity  remitting  the 
interest,  but  taking  a  new  mortgage  on  the  new  churches  up 
town,  as  being  equally  good  security.  It  is  clear  that  there  is 
legal  power  to  foreclose  all  these  mortgages,  but  it  is  equally 
clear  that  it  could  not  be  done  without  a  violation  of  good  faith; 
and,  as  Mr.  Moore  expresses  it,  if  the  Church  were  to  foreclose 
one  of  them,  "such  a  clamor  would  be  raised,  that  they  would 
never  hear  the  last  of  it." 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  comptroller  testified  $400,000, 
to  be  the  sum  fixed  by  the  corporation,  after  much  discussion, 
as  that  for  which  they  would  sell  their  interest  in  St.  John's 
square.  Mr.  Dix  testifies,  that  he  looks  upon  this  sum  not  as 
representing  the  value  of  the  interest  of  the  corporation  in  that 
property,  but  as  "  the  measure  of  damage  that  would  be  done  to 
Trinity  Church  by  destroying  the  park."  Mr.  Skidmore,  a 
member  of  the  standing  committee,  testifies  that  the  value  of  the 
corporation  interest  in  the  park  is  not  more  than  |75,000.  The 
enormous  discrepancy  is  beyond  the  power  of  your  committee  to 
explain. 

Leasehold  property  in  certain  quarters  of  the  city  is  shown  to 
be  capable  of  the  highest  class  of  improvements. 

It  is  testified  by  members  of  the  vestry,  that  they  administer 
their  trust  solely  as  the  representatives  of  Trinity  parish  proper, 
and  as  making  grants  outof  her  bounty,  and  from  property  which 
is  exclusively  her  own.  They  acknowledge  no  obligation  to  "  the 
inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  in  communion  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  of  the  State  of  New- York." 

It  is  testified  strongly,  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
has  not  kept  pace  with  the  increase  of  population  in  the  city  of 


144 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


New-York,  and  that  there  is  in  parts  of  that  city  a  want,  and  as 
some  say  a  great  want,  of  more  Episcopal  churches,  especially 
free  churches  for  the  poorer  and  laboring  classes.  Mr.  Dix  tes- 
tifies to  the  existence  of  a  population  of  120,000,  below  Canal 
street,  to  meet  which  Trinity  has  only  four  churches.  The  des- 
titution in  other  parts  of  the  city  is  shown  to  be  still  more  press- 
ing. It  is  admitted  that  Trinity  has,  in  fact,  never  at  any  time 
built  a  free  church.  But  it  is  contended  that  she  has  done  so  in 
effect,  by  contributing  almost  as  much  money  as  the  erection  of 
such  a  church  required,  or  by  keeping  up  as  free  churches, 
buildings  which  she  might  have  sold  or  removed  with  better 
prospects  of  self-support. 

The  effectiveness  of  the  mode  in  which  Trinity  has  aided  other 
free  churches,  may  be  best  seen  by  examining  their  condition, 
as  showed  by  her  own  clergy.  Dr.  Haight  gives  a  list  of  all 
in  the  city,  amounting  to  nineteen;  of  which  tour  are  sus- 
pended (three  of  them  being  fairly  dead;)  two  are  worship- 
ping in  halls,  having  no  buildings  of  their  own;  and  thir- 
teen have  church  building?,  averaging  only  450  to  500  sit- 
tings, each;  an  amount  of  accommodation  insuflicient  for  suc- 
cess on  the  free  church  plan.  The  rest  are  generally  in  so  fee- 
ble a  state,  that,  as  Dr.  Berrian  testifies,  if  the  stipend  of  Trinity 
were  withdrawn,  "  the  most  of  them  would  '  languish,'  and  the 
rest  would  in  a  short  time  absolutely  perish." 

Great  credit  is  claimed  for  the  degree  in  which  Trinity  Church 
and  St.  Paul's  and  St.  John's  chapels  iuay  be  regarded  as  free 
churches.  But  here,  too,  there  seems  to  be  a  discrepancy  in  the 
testimony,  not  easily  to  be  reconciled. 

The  report  of  the  corporation  to  the  Senate  in  February,  1856, 
claims  only  1,065  free  sittings  as  the  whole  number  in  the  four 
churches  of  the  parish,  including  the  seats  in  the  aisles.  Dr. 
Berrian  testifies  that  there  are  now  1,200  to  1,300,— not  a  very 
great  difference.  Trinity  Claurch  is  said  in  the  report  to  have 
only  56  free  pews,  or  280  sittings.  Yet  Mr.  Dix  testifies,  that 
"  much  the  greater  part  of  the  pews  in  Trinity  "  are  free,  that 
Church  being  able  to  seat  over  1,000  persons.  Mr.  Verplanck 
also  testifies,  that  the  pew  rents  in  Trinity  Church  amount  only 
to  $157  a  year,  which  is  very  small  if  only  56  of  the  pews  are 
free.    Again,  the  report  of  1856  claims  only  39  free  pews  for  St. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


14S 


Paul's,  while  Mr.  Dix  testifies,  that  of  its  144  pews  104  are  free; 
and  Mr.  Verplanck  states  its  annual  pew  rental  to  be  only  $280. 
These  discrepancies  are  not  easy  to  explain,  but  it  is  evident 
that  those  churches,  with  St.  John's  chapel,  are  rapidly  becom- 
ing more  and  more  free.  This,  it  is  testified,  is  owing  to  the 
fact  that  the  classes  of  persons  able  to  rent  pews  are  rapidly 
leaving  those  parts  of  the  city,  so  that  the  vestry  could  not  rent 
the  pews  even  if  they  would.  The  only  alternative,  therefore,  is 
to  make  the  seats  free,  or  else  tear  the  churches  down  and  re- 
move them  to  the  upper  portions  of  the  city,  which  Trinity  has 
never  contemplated  doing.  Were  all  these  churches  wholly  free, 
however,  they  would  still  be  very  far  from  enough  to  supply  the 
great  need  of  that  portion  of  the  city,  to  say  nothing  of  other  por- 
tions yet  more  destitute.  And  this  work,  as  Mr.  Dix  testifies,  is 
so  peculiarly  the  duty  of  Trinity,  that  if  slie  does  not  perform  it, 
nothing  will  be  done  at  all . 

Although  it  is  testified  that  no  new  churches  have  heen  built 
up,  set  off  and  endowed  with  competent  estates  since  1814,  that 
the  corporators  have  never  since  then  been  divided,  that  the 
policy  of  landed  endowment  has  been  abandoned,  and  that  the 
estate  of  Trinity  Church,  instead  of  being  broken  down,  is  now 
more  valuable  than  ever  before;  yet  no  direct  attempt  is  made  to 
disavow  or  disclaim  the  representations  urged  by  Col.  Troup,  in 
order  to  obtain  the  law  of  1814.  On  the  contraiy,  it  is  testified 
by  Dr.  Berrian,  that  Col.  Troup  was  one  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity 
at  the  time,  and  was  also  one  of  a  "  committee,  appointed  by  the 
vestry,  with  full  power  to  make  application  "  for  that  law  to  the 
Legislature.  This,  of  itself,  clothes  his  representations  with  a 
degree  of  authority  which  cannot  be  impaired  by  inference  or 
inuendo  merely.  And  this  position  of  authorized  agency  ex- 
plains the  reason  why  he,  rather  than  any  other  person,  was 

asked  for  his  reasons  in  support  of  the  bill." 

Another  consideration  is  important  on  this  subject.  The  law 
of  1814  embodies  the  requests  of  the  vestry  itself,  as  contained 
in  its  petition,  made  at  the  time.  The  only  three  things  they 
ask  for,  are  the  alteration  of  the  title  of  the  corporation,  the 
exclusion  of  all  outside  of  Trinity  parish  as  corporators,  and  to 
be  relieved  from  the  obligation  of  making  any  inventory  and 
account,  except  after  the  acquisition  of  additional  property. 

10 


146 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


These  three  things  are  all  embodied  in  the  1st,  2d  and  6th 
sections  of  that  law.  The  3d,  4th  and  5th  sections,  however, 
contain  provisions  which  Trinity  did  not  ask  for  in  her  petition. 
It  is  known  that  there  was  strong  opposition  to  the  law  in  certain 
quarters,  and  it  is  evident  that  these  additional  sections, — which 
provide  for  dividing  the  corporators,  and  for  building,  setting  off 
and  endowing  new  churches  with  competent  estates, — were  in- 
serted as  the  palatable  and  popular  features  to  enable  the  bill  to 
pass.  The  other  provisions  were  for  the  benefit  of  Trinity  only. 
These  were  added,  to  show  that  the  law  would  be  a  benefit  to 
others  also.  It  is  evident,  moreover,  from  the  language  used  by 
Col.  Troup,  that  when  two  members  of  the  Council  of  Revision 
asked  him  for  his  reasons  in  support  of  the  bill,  they  meant  the 
reasons  which  he  had  previously  urged  in  the  Legislature,  in 
what  he  himself  alludes  to  as  "  his  zealous  exertions  to  procure 
the  passage  of  the  bill  through  the  two  Houses."  This  is  evi- 
dent, too,  from  the  authoritative  manner  in  which  he  declared 
such  and  such  things  to  be  the  "  objects  of  the  bill."  And  no 
other  explanation  of  those  objects,  so  far  as  the  3d,  4th  and  5th 
sections  are  concerned, is  known  to  your  committee  to  be  extant. 
To  argue  against  the  authority  of  his  representations,  therefore, 
because  the  date  of  his  pamphlet  is  subsequent  to  the  passage  of 
the  law  through  the  two  Houses,  is  altogether  inconclusive. 
The  change  of  policy,  therefore,  which  took  place  immediately 
after  obtaining  that  law,  and  the  non-fulfilment  of  the  represen- 
tations made  to  secure  its  passage,  cannot  be  relieved  from  the 
construction  placed  upon  them  in  the  previous  report  of  your 
committee. 

Two  points  appear  to  demand  a  change  in  the  existing  law. 
At  present,  there  is  no  practical  responsibility  to  which  the  ves- 
try can  be  held,  as  a  security  for  the  proper  administration  of 
their  vast  estate,  except  by  means  ot  inquiry  through  the  Legis- 
lature. This,  in  its  own  nature,  must  be  irregular,  and  open  to 
more  or  less  of  delay,  irritation  and  unsatisfactoriness  generally. 
The  courts  of  law  are  too  expensive  and  too  tedious  to  make  it 
worth  while  Ibr  individuals  to  try  their  strength,  in  that  mode,, 
with  a  corporation  worth  millions.  Nor  does  there  appear  to  be 
any  manner  in  which  responsibility  can  be  secured  ecclesiastic- 


OU  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHUHCH. 


147 


ally,  any  more  than  civilly.  Bishop  Potter  testifies  that  he  has 
no  power  to  supervise  the  grants  of  the  vestry;  that  his  assent  is 
not  necessary  to  the  validity  of  their  acts;  that  they  make -no 
report  of  their  doings  in  money  matters,  either  to  him  or 
to  the  convention  of  the  diocese;  that  he  is  not  cognizant 
of  the  internal  or  financial  affairs  of  the  corporation;  that 
it  isnot  the  practice  of  the  vestry  to  consult  with  him  in  regard 
to  the  making  of  grants,  and  that  he  does  not  wish  to  be  thus 
eonsulted;  that  he  has  taken  care  to  have  it  understood  that  he 
can  exert  no  influence  in  behalf  of  applicants;  and  that  he  is 
even  afraid  to  propose  plans  of  his  own  to  Trinity,  because  of 
their  debt.  He  testifies  that  his  power  is  purely  spiritual,  and 
that  it  is  only  in  case  of  charges  of  crime  or  immorality  that 
the  rector  or  any  vestryman  would  be  in  anywise  amenable  to 
him  in  the  way  of  discipline.  The  sole  practical  power  of  re- 
medying any  evil  in  the  vestry,  appears,  therefore,  to  reside  in 
the  corporators,  to  be  exercised  at  the  annual  election.  And 
yet,  even  this  measure  of  responsibility  is  now,  and  has  been  for 
a  long  time,  wholly  neutralized  by  the  fact  that  the  vestry  never 
present  any  report  whatever  to  the  corporators,  who,  being  thus 
kept  in  ignorance,  enjoy  a  degree  of  satisfaction  with  the  vestry, 
which  leaves  them  without  any  motive  to  attend  the  polls. 

As  some  real  safeguard  is,  however,  absolutely  necessary  for 
the  wise  and  responsible  administration  of  this  immense  estate, 
your  committee  would  therefore  recommend  that  the  vestry  be 
required  to  furnish  to  all  their  corporators,  in  print,  by  the  1st 
of  February  at  the  latest,  a  full  and  minute  statement  of  the  de- 
tails of  their  income  and  expenditure  during  the  year;  what  lots 
have  been  sold  or  relet,  and  on  what  terms;  what  grants  have 
been  made,  and  to  whom;  what  bonds  and  mortgages  are  held; 
and  what  is  the  estimated  increase  or  diminution  in  the  gross 
value  of  the  estate  of  the  corporation;  and  also,  that  they  be 
required  to  append  thereto  a  complete  and  correct  list  of  all  the 
corporators  of  the  parish.  This  will  enable  them  to  perform 
their  duty  with  intelligence. 

And  this  will  appear  to  be  the  more  necessary,  when  we  con- 
sider the  extreme  change  that  has  already  taken  place  and  is 


148 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Still  going  on  in  the  three  congregations  of  Trinity  parish,  down 
town.  Dr.  Berrian  testifies  that,  between  1840  and  1848,  no 
less-  than  335  families  and  70  individuals  left  the  parish; 
and  the  same  process  has  been  going  on  with  still  greater  rapi- 
dity since.  He  tells  us  that  nearly  all  the  persons  of  wealth 
and  condition,  even  as  high  up  as  St.  John's  Chapel,  have  re- 
moved up  town  J  that  Trinity  Church  is  almost  entirelj'  occupied 
by  strangers,  and  the  poor,  only  a  very  scanty  remnant  of  its 
former  congregation  remaining;  and  that  the  same  is  true  of  St. 
Paul's,  and  in  some  degree  of  St.  John's. 

Dr.  Haight  describes  the  congregation  at  Trinity  as  made  up  of 
strangers,  young  men,  transient  residents,  and  the  poor.  Dr. 
Vinton  testifies  that  the  congregation  at  St.  Paul's,  is  composed 
mainly  of  strangers,  clerks,  mechanics,  artizans,  porters,  washer- 
women, hucksters,  and  miscellaneous  poor,  making  their  living 
as  daily  laborers.  Dr.  Higbee  says  that  these  removals  have 
"  gradually  and  surely  deprived  Trinity  and  St.  Paul's  of  their 
regular  congregations,  and  parochial  spirit,  responsibility,  and 
efficiency  ;"  and  that  they  "  diminish  and  weaken,  in  a  continu- 
ally increasing  ratio,  the  constituency  of  the  corporation,  thus 
destroying  the  equilibrium  of  the  parish,  and  undermining  its 
foundations  as  an  institution  of  public  charity.''  As  an  unavoida- 
ble consequence  of  this  sweeping  change,  both  in  the  number  and 
the  character  of  the  corporators,  it  has  been  found  impossible  to 
'*  keep  up  the  standing  of  the  constituency;"  and  Dr.  Berrian  ex- 
cuses the  present  state  of  things  on  the  ground  that  in  former 
times  there  was  "  a  wider  range  than  now  for  the  choice  of  dis- 
tinguished and  intelligent  vestrymen,''  qualified  to  administer  so 
important  a  trust. 

Dr.  Haight,  too,  when  testifying  that  the  vestry  have,  in  his 
opinion,  done  their  best,  adds,  the  important  qualification,  "as 
constituted  for  the  last  quarter  of  a  century."  It  is  also  repre- 
sented that  the  new  chapel  will  preserve  the  parish  from  the 
total  change  which  otherwise  seemed  impending,  but  from 
present  appearances,  the  chapel  will  soon  contain  all  that  are 
left  of  the  grade  of  corporators  which  gave  this  ancient  parish 
its  pre-eminence  in  olden  times;  and  that  a  large  addition  will 
be  made,  indeed,  to  the  number  of  corporators,  from  among 
the  many  communicants  in  the  three  churches  down  town — a 
number  more  than  enough  to  out-vote  the  one  small  congrega- 


0»  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


149 


tion  of  the  chapel ;  but  they  will  be  from  classes  of  the  commu- 
nity whose  general  standing  and  intelligence  will  not  qualify 
them  to  exercise  properly  the  control  of  the  ballot  box  over 
the  administration  of  so  vast  and  delicately  complicated  a  trust; 
and  that  it  is  absolutely  necessary,  therefore,  that  the  con- 
stituency should  be  reinforced  from  that  class  to  which  it  origi- 
nally belonged. 

A  repeal  of  the  law  of  1814,  would  effect  this;  but  from  defe- 
rence to  the  opinions  of  the  two  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal church  in  this  State,  and  others  of  the  witnesses,  who 
anticipate  great  strife  and  confusion  from  a  simple  repeal  of  that 
law  as  a  whole,  your  committee  would  recommend  a  modifica- 
tion of  it  in  only  two  particulars,  leaving  all  the  rest  of  the  law 
to  stand  as  at  present.  The  first  is,  the  amendment  of  the  second 
section,  by  restoring  the  substance  of  the  third  section  of  the  Law 
of  1784.  And  the  second  is  an  additional  section  to  the  present 
law,  providing  for  an  annual  report  to  the  corporators  of  the 
parish. 

In  conclusion,  therefore,  your  committee  ask  leave  to  bring  in 
a  bill,  in  conformity  with  the  recommendations  contained  in  the 
above  report. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

MARK  SPENCER, 
JAMES  NOXON, 
J.  H.  RAMSEY. 


AN  ACT 


To  amend  an  act  entitled  "An  act  to  alter  the  name  of 
the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in  New- York,  and 
for  other  purposes,"  passed  Jan.  25,  1814. 

The  People  of  the  State  of  Jfew-York,  represented  in  Senate  and 
Assembly,  do  enact  as  follows  : 

Section  1.  The  Second  section  of  the  act  entitled  "an  act  to 
alter  the  name  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in  New- 
York,  and  for  other  purposes,"  passed  January  25,  1814,  is  here- 
by so  amended  as  to  read  as  follows : 

\  2.  Every  male  inhabitant  of  the  city  of  New-York  of  full 
age,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  th 
State  of  New-York,  who  shall  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or 
seat  in  any  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  said  city,  in  union 
with  the  convention  of  the  diocese  of  New-York,  or  shall  have 
partaken  of  the  Holy  communion  therein,  wi*hin  the  year  next 
preceding  any  election  for  Church  wardens  and  vestrymen,  to 
be  certified  by  the  rector,  senior  warden,  or  clerk  of  the  vestry 
of  such  Church,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote,  at  all  elections  for 
Church  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  this  corporation. 

§2.  The  said  act  of  January  25, 18 14,  is  liereby  further  amended 
so  as  to  read  as  follows  : 

§  7.  "  The  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  shall  once  in  every  year, 
on  the  first  day  of  February,  furnish  to  their  corporators  a  prin- 
ted statement  of  the  afiairs  of  the  corporation,  including  the  de- 
tails of  annual  income  and  expenditure,  specifying  what  lots 
have  been  relet  or  sold,  and  for  what  amounts,  and  how  many 
remain;  what  grants,  loans,  or  stipends  have  been  made,  and  to 
whom;  what  bonds  and  mortgages  are  held,  of  every  sort;  with 
the  estimated  change  in  the  gross  value  of  the  corporation  estate, 
if  any;  and  appending  also  the  full  and  correct  list  of  all  the 
corporators  who  will  be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  easter  election 
then  next  ensuing. 

§  3.  This  act  shall  take  effect  immediately. 


TESTIMONY 


TESTIMONY  INTRODUCED  ON  THE  PART  OF  THE  VES- 
TRY. 

Friday,  February  13,  1857. 

Present — Senate  committee — Senators  Spencer,  Noxon,  and 
Ramsey.  The  trustees  of  Trinity  Church  were  represented  by 
Judge  Parker,  and  O.  Meads,  Esq. 

Rev-  Benjamin  L  Haight,  called  and  sworn, 

Ques.  What  means  have  you  of  being  acquainted  with  the 
affairs  of  Trinity  Church  1  A.  I  have  been  one  of  the  ministers 
of  Trinity  Church  for  the  last  ten  years,  and  for  nearly  two  years 
last  past  have  been  the  assistant  minister  assigned  to  Trinity 
Church,  and  have  had  more  especial  charge  of  the  parochial 
work  connected  with  that  church.  I  have  lived  in  New- York 
all  my  life,  with  the  exception  of  about  three  years  ;  for  nearly 
twenty-three  years  have  been  exercising  the  functions  of  my 
ministry  in  the  city  of  New-York. 

Q.  It  is  stated  in  the  report  of  the  select  committee,  at  page 
seven,  that  it  appears  in  the  evidence  that  Trinity  Church  lias 
never  at  any  time  established  or  endowed  any  institution  of 
charity  or  benevolence,  even  for  her  own  poor.  Is  this  correct? 
A.  I  know  of  several  institutions  of  charity  or  benevolence  which 
have  either  been  established  or  endowed  by  Trinity  Church  for 


152 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


the  poor.  1st.  The  charity  school  originally  opened  in  New- 
York,  in  Trinity  Church,  one  hundred  and  forty-eight  years  ago^ 
and  which  has  derived  its  support  mainly,  especially  since  the 
Revolution,  from  Trinity  Church,  and  in  which  a  large  number 
of  poor  children  have  been,  not  only  educated,  but  clothed,  and 
partially  supported.  I  have  been  the  secretary  of  the  board  of 
trustees  of  this  school,  now  known  as  the  New-York  Protestant 
Episcopal  Public  School,  for  about  twenty  years  last  past.  Its 
present  available  endowment  has  arisen,  in  large  part,  from 
grants  from  Trinity  Church.  A  portion  of  the  endowment  arose 
from  legacies  of  individuals.  [This  statement  does  not  include 
8  bequest  of  landed  estate  which  has  not  yet  become  at  all  avail- 
able for  the  purposes  of  the  school.]  For  the  last  twenty  years 
there  have  been  constantly  sixty-four  poor  boys  on  the  founda- 
tion, who  have  received  a  superior  education  gratuitously,  been 
provided  with  the  necessary  books,  and  have  received  part  of 
them,  $50  per  year,  and  part  of  them  $30  per  year,  (there  being 
two  departments,)  towards  their  clothing  and  support.  In  the 
appointment  of  scholars,  preference  is  given  to  the  children  of 
deceased  clergymen  and  of  widows.  One  of  the  last  appointments 
made  was  that  of  a  son  of  a  clergyman,  recently  deceased,  in  the 
neighborhood  of  New- York,  who  left  a  wife  and  several  children 
in  dependent  circumstances.  I  mention  this  as  an  illustration 
of  the  mode  in  which  the  charity  is  administered.  Another 
institution  established  and  endowed  by  Trinity  Church,  is  the 
Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Religion  and  Learning  in  the  State 
of  New- York,  of  which  I  happen  to  have  been  a  trustee  for  a 
number  of  years.  The  income  arising  from  its  endowment  has 
been  expended  in  large  measure,  in  aiding  in  the  support  of  in- 
digerit  young  men  preparing  for  the  sacred  ministry.  It  also 
contributes  annually  $1,600  to  the  support  of  the  Hobart  Free 
College,  Geneva,  having,  in  addition  thereto,  made  a  grant  in 
gross  of  $7,000.  I  regard  this  society  as  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant charitable  institutions  we  have  in  the  State.  In  Hobart 
Free  College  the  education  is  gratuitous  entirely,  and  open  to 
all  classes  of  citizens  without  reference  to  religious  opiuion. 
Within  the  last  two  years  several  arrangements  have  been  made 
by  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  having  special  reference  to  the 


ON  AFFAIBS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


153 


education  and  general  welfare  of  the  poor.  About  the  1st  of 
December,  1855,  a  parish  school  was  opened  in  connection  with 
St.  Paul's  chapel  in  which  fifty  poor  children  have  constantly 
been  received  and  taught.  In  connection  with  Trinity  Church, 
of  which  I  have  the  more  especial  charge,  a  number  of  arrange- 
ments for  the  benefit  of  the  poor  have  been  entered  into  within 
the  same  period.  By  Trinity  Church,  I  mean  the  old  parish 
church  in  Broadway.  A  colleague  has  been  assigned  me  to  aid 
in  parochial  duty  with  especial  reference  to  missionary  work 
among  the  poor  in  the  lower  part  of  the  city  below  Fulton  street; 
in  addition  to  which,  two  lay  visitors  are  engaged  among  the 
poor,  through  whose  instrumentality  mainly,  a  large  and 
flourishing  Sunday  school  has  been  created  and  sustained  in 
that  church,  composed  almost  exclusively  of  poor  children;  out 
of  two  hundred  and  twenty  there  may  be  five  who  are  not  poor 
children;  there  has  also  been  established  at  Castle  Garden, 
which  is  within  my  district,  an  agency  having  especial  reference 
to  the  poor  membe.6  of  the  church  of  England  and  Ireland  who 
are  landed  at  that  depot.  I  deemed  it  my  duty  as  the  assistant 
minister,  more  especially  in  charge  of  Trinity  Church,  as  soon 
as  the  Commissioners  of  Emigi'ation  obtained  possession  of  Castle 
Garden  as  a  receptacle  of  emigrants,  to  make  application  to  them 
for  permission  to  visit  such  emigrants,  as  above  described,  on 
their  landing,  with  a  view  to  their  benefit.  Permission  was 
granted  by  the  Commissioners,  and  on  my  application,  through 
the  rector,  to  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  for  the  means  of  sup- 
porting this  agency,  the  necessary  amount  was  at  once  voted ;  it 
is  now  the  second  year  of  the  agency;  the  sum  appropriated  the 
first  year  was  $600;  I  have  asked  for  $500  for  the  current  year, 
and  shall  ask  for  more  if  necessary.  In  regard  to  my  own  pa- 
rochial labors  in  Trinity  parish,  during  the  whole  term  of  my 
connection  with  it,  at  least  three-fourths  thereof  have  been 
among  the  poor.  During  the  last  conventional  year  there  were 
nearly  one  hundred  baptisms  of  children  in  Trinity  Church 
itself,  of  whom  not  more,  I  think,  than  three  were  children  of  a 
different  class,  that  is  lo  say,  all  were  children  of  the  poor  except 
three.  A  detailed  report  of  the  services  and  parochial  work  of 
Trinity  Cbiuch,  was  made  by  me  to  the  rector  in  September  last 


154 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


at  liis  request,  and  by  him  communicated  to  the  vestry  along 
with  the  reports  of  other  assistant  ministers,  and  may  be  found 
in  the  appendix  to  the  report  of  the  rector,  which  has  been 
printed  for  distribution.  In  connection  witli  St.  Paul's,  St. 
John's  and  Trinity  chapel,  there  are  also  parochial  arrangements 
having  reference  to  the  poor,  with  the  details  of  which  I  am 
not,  however,  sufficiently  acquainted  to  speak,  they  being  in  the 
charge  of  oiher  assistant  ministers  of  said  parish.  St.  George's 
ehapel,  Beekman  street,  has  been  sustained  by  Trinity  Church 
for  several  years  past  as  a  mission  church  ;  the  resident  popula- 
tion in  the  neighborhood  being  exclusively  of  the  poorer  class. 
The  same  remark  may  apply  to  the  resident  population  general- 
ly in  the  lower  part  of  the  city. 

Q.  What  number  of  ministers  are  there  in  Trinity  parish? 
How  are  they  employed,  and  what  are  the  character  and  num- 
ber of  the  congregations  which  attend  the  several  churches  in 
that  parish  1  A.  There  are  nine  clergymen  in  Trinity  parish — 
the  rector  and  eight  assistant  ministers.  Two  of  the  assistant 
ministers  are  engaged  in  parochial  duty  in  connection  Avitli  each 
of  the  churche?,  the  rector  having  the  general  oversight  of  the 
parish,  and  performing  duties  in  all  parts  thereof.  The  congre- 
gation at  Trinity  church  is  large,  and  composed  in  great  part  of 
strangers,  transient  residents,  young  men,  clerks,  etc.,  and  the 
poor,  upon  none  ot  whom  is  any  tax,  in  the  form  of  pew  rent  or 
otherwise,  laid,  for  the  support  of  the  ministrations  of  the  church. 
Of  the  character  and  number  of  the  congregations  in  the  three  » 
chapels — St.  Paul's,  St.  John's,  and  Trinity  chapel,  I  cannot 
speak  with  as  much  certainty.  The  congregation  at  St.  Paul's 
appears  to  me  to  be  very  similar  to  that  of  Trinity,  and  con- 
stantly becoming  more  so.  In  St.  John's  chapel,  an  arrange- 
ment has  been  made,  I  believe,  by  which  a  certain  number  of 
free  sittings  have  been  provided,  with  special  reference  to  the 
poor  ;  and  in  Trinity  chapel  there  are  from  one  hundred  and 
fifty  to  two  hundred  free  sittings,  in  the  best  parts  of  the  church, 
which  are  generally  well  filled.  At  the  third  or  night  service 
in  Trinity  chapel,  which  is  continued  for  several  months  in  the 
year,  and  on  all  other  occasions  except  the  morning  and  after- 
noon service  on  Sundays  and  several  special  days,  all  the  seats 


o 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHUKCB. 


155 


in  Trinity  chapel  are  free.  This  chapel  and  Trinity  church  are 
open  daily  for  morning  and  afternoon  service  throughout  the  year. 
It  is  computed  there  are  from  1,200  to  1,500  free  sittings  in  the 
parish. 

Q.  Have  the  contributions  for  charitable  and  religious  purpo- 
ses in  the  down  town  congregations  of  Trinity  parish  been  de- 
creasing of  late  years,  and  if  so,  how  do  you  account  for  it  1 
A.  My  impression  is  that  they  have  decreased.  In  Trinity 
Church  our  collections,  with  the  exception  of  the  contributions 
of  a  very  few  persons,  are  small,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  great 
bulk  of  the  worshipers  are  either  strangers  or  persons  in  very 
moderate  circumstances;  the  wealthier  portion  of  its  former  con- 
gregation having  removed  to  the  upper  part  of  the  city. 

Q.  What  church  accommodations  are  there  down  town, below 
the  Park,  besides  those  afforded  by  the  churches  of  Trinity 
parish "?  A.  I  know  of  but  two  other  places  of  worship  ;  the 
Dutch  church,  in  William-street,  and  the  Methodist  church,  in 
John-st.  In  consequence  of  the  removal  of  the  other  churches, 
the  clergy  of  Trinity  parish  are  not  unfrequently  called  upon  to 
minister  to  the  people  of  several  protestant  denominations. 
Among  the  candidates  presented  for  confirmation  in  Trinity 
Church,  last  spring,  a  large  proportion  were  persons  who  did  not 
originally  belong  to  the  Episcopal  church.  No  call  for  ministe- 
rial service,  from  any  quarter,  is  ever  declined  by  the  clergy  of 
Trinity  parish,  and  special  arrangements  have  been  made  at 
Trinity  and  St.  Paul's  churches  for  convenience  of  access  to  the 
clergy  for  such  duties.  For  example.  Trinity  church  is  open 
throughout  the  entire  day  in  each  day  of  the  week,  and  the 
clergy  are  in  attendance  in  the  vestry  room  at  stated  hours,  to 
answer  any  calls  for  their  services  that  may  be  made.  In  this 
way,  the  sick,  the  dying  and  the  afflicted,  can  always  be  visited 
by  a  clergyman  within  a  short  period.  By  far  the  greater  part 
of  the  work  thus  performed  is  among  the  poor. 

Recess  until  4  P.  M.,  Saturday. 


156 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Saturday,  Feb.  14,  4  p.  m. 

Present,  the  Senate  Comnjittee,  Messrs.  Spencer  Noxon  and 
Ramsey.  Judge  Parker  and  O.  Meads,  Esq.,  on  behalf  of  the 
Trustees  of  Trinity  Church. 

Rev.  Benjamin  I.  Hiight,  testimony  continued  : 

Q.  Are  there  any  other  arrangements  in  regard  to  the  poor  in 
Trinity  parish,  in  addition  to  those  you  mentioned  yesterday? 
A.  I  think  that  one  of  my  answers  yesterday  included  all  the 
arrangements  in  general  terms.  With  the  arrangements  at  St. 
Paul's,  St.  John's  and  Trinity  chapels  I  am  not  thoroughly 
familiar.  A  sketch  of  them  will  be  found  in  the  recent  report 
of  the  Rector  to  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  which  has  been 
published,  and  to  which  I  yesterday  referred.  I  will  here  add, 
that  the  several  parochial  arrangements,  having  reference  to  the 
poor  in  Trinity  parish,  which  I  have  described,  and  which  were 
commenced  about  two  years  since,  I  regard  not  as  a  complete 
system,  but  as  only  the  beginning  of  a  system  of  parochial 
arrangement.  When  I  entered  upon  my  present  duties,  it  was 
with  the  distinct  impression  on  my  part,  grounded  upon  my 
knowledge  of  the  views  of  the  Rector  and  the  Vestry,  that  I  was 
not  to  be  simply  a  parochial  minister  at  Trinity  Church,  in  the 
ordinary  acceptation  of  that  term,  but  that  I  was  also  to  origi- 
nate and  carry  forward  various  plans  of  a  missionary  character, 
having  reference  to  the  working  classes  and  the  poor  in  that  dis- 
trict. I  have  acted  upon  this  presumption,  and  have  thus  far 
received  from  the  Rector  and  Vestry  constant  encouragement 
and  support  ;  and  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  encouragement  and 
support  will  continue  to  be  extended  to  me,  with  reference  to 
any  plans  which  I  may  present  for  the  moral  and  spiritual  ben- 
lit  of  the  inhabitants  in  the  lower  part  of  the  city. 

Q.  The  report  states,  (p.  8,)  that  as  to  free  churches,  it  does  not 
appear,  from  the  report  of  Trinity  Church,  that  she  has  ever 
built  any.  What  can  you  say  on  this  subject  ?  A.  The  state- 
ment in  the  report  is  technically  true,  but  it  does  not  convey  to 
my  mind  an  accurate  representation  of  the  subject;  for  in  conse- 
quence of  the  building  of  the  new  Trinity  chapel,  and  the 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


157 


arrangements  made  by  the  Vestry  with  regard  to  the  pews  in 
that  chapel,  Trinity  Church  and  St.  Paul's  chapel  have  already 
in  great  'part  changed  their  former  character,  and  from  pewed 
churches,  as  they  are  termed,  have  become  virtually  free  churches, 
so  that,  although  Trinity  Church  has  not  built,  technically,  two 
free  churches,  she  has,  so  to  speak,  created  two.  The  foregoing 
remark  applies  in  part  also  to  St.  John's  chapel. 

The  arrangements  in  regard  to  the  pews  at  Trinity  Chapel, 
to  which  I  have  referred,  were  these :  The  Vestry  offered  to 
each  party  holding  a  pew  in  either  of  their  three  down-town 
churches,  who  might  be  desirous  of  obtaining  a  pew  in  Triuty 
Chapel,  to  credit  him  with  the  amount  of  the  rent  of  his  pew 
down  town  on  condition  that,  while  he  occupied  the  pew  in  Tri- 
nity chapel,  the  Vestry  should  be  entitled  to  the  use  of  the  pew 
down  town.  The  pews  which  thus  came  into  the  possession  of 
the  Vestry  have  been  tin-own  open  by  them  for  general  use, 
without  charge.  As  the  number  of  pews  of  this  class  is  quite 
large,  as  I  have  before  said.  Trinity  and  St.  Paul's  have  become, 
in  a  large  measure,  free  churches  and  St.  John's  measurably  so; 
and  these  churches  are  of  such  a  character,  architecturally  and 
otherwise,  as  to  secure  .the  attendance  of  the  poor  to  a  much 
greater  extent  than  has  been  found  practicable  in  humbler 
edifices. 

Q.  Has  Trinity  Church,  clergymen  employed  as  ministers  at 
large  whose  special  duty  it  is  to  look  atter  the  spiritual  Avants 
of  the  poor  and  destitute  among  the  "inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New- York,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church?" 
A.  When  about  two  years  ago  the  Vestry  increased  the  number 
of  assistant  ministers,  three  were  added,  whose  special  duty  it 
was  to  look  after  the  spiritual  wants  of  the  poor  and  destitute; 
one  of  these  has  been  assigned  by  the  Rector  to  do  missionary 
duty  of  this  class,  in  connection  with  each  of  the  three  down 
town  churches,  and  has  been  constantly  occupied  therein  from 
that  time;  and  from  the  nature  of  the  cases,  three  of  the  other 
assistant  ministers  who  have  been  assigned  to  the  said  churches 
have  been  called  upon  for  a  large  share  of  this  sort  of  duty. 
In  my  own  case,  fully  three-fourths  of  my  parochial  work  has 
been  among  the  poor  and  destitute. 


158 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  missionary  duty?  A.  I  mean  the 
performance  of  ministerial  work  among  the  i>oor  and  destitute 
who  are  not  ordinarily  found  within  our  churches,  and  who 
have  to  be  in  many  cases  sought  after. 

Q.  In  the  report  of  this  committee,  page  24,  it  is  said  of  the 
congregation  of  Trinity  Parish  tliat  their  four  congregations 
united  do  less,  as  is  testified,  than  some  single  independent  con- 
gregations in  this  same  city,  with  little  or  no  endowment.  What 
have  you  to  say  on  this  subject  ;  and  if  it  is  so,  is  it  charge- 
able at  all  to  the  administration  of  the  aifairs  of  Trinity  Church, 
by  the  Vestry  1  A.  If  the  statement  referred  to,  be  true,  it  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at,  inasmuch  as  two  of  the  congregations  of 
Trinity  Parish  are  now  mainly  composed  of  strangers,  transient 
persons,  the  working  classes  and  the  poor  ;  while  even  in  regard 
to  the  other  two  congregations  it  may  be  affirmed,  that  neither 
of  them,  not  even  that  of  Trinity  Chapel,  compares  in  point  of 
individual  wealth  with  several  other  independent  congregations. 
There  has  been  a  very  great  change,  of  late  years  in  the  down 
town  congregations,  in  consequence  of  the  removal  of  persons 
ot  substance,  to  the  upper  parts  of  the  city.  I  can  see  no  con- 
nection whatever,  between  the  alleged  smallness  of  the  contribu- 
tions of  the  members  of  Trinity  Parish  and  the  administration 
of  the  affairs  of  the  Corporation.  If  there  be  a  fault  in  the 
matter,  it  cannot  justly,  be  Jaid  to  the  charge  of  the  Vestry  ;  it 
must  rest  with  the  clergy  and  the  people. 

Q.  Are  you  cognizant  of  any  measures  taken  from  time  to 
time  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  who  have  been  added  to  the 
corporators  of  Trinity  Parish,  and  what  difficulties  are  there  in 
the  city  of  New-York,  in  ascertaining  who  ceased  to  be  corpora- 
tors ?  A.  I  have  been  annually  asked  by  the  rector  to  make  a 
return  to  him,  of  all  such  male  persons  who  have  to  my  knowl- 
edge become  communicants  in  our  parish,  in  order  that  he 
might  add  them  to  the  list  of  corporators.  In  no  case  that  I 
remember,  have  I  been  asked  by  any  individual  who  had  thus 
acquired  the  rights  of  a  corporator,  to  return  his  name,  but  the 
return  has  been  made  at  the  desire  of  the  rector  ;  there  is  great 
difficulty  in  the  city  of  New-York  in  a  large  and  miscellaneous 


ON  AFFAIRS  OP  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


150 


parish  like  ours,  in  ascertaining  who  of  the  male  communicants 
have  removed  and  the  time  of  their  removal*;  the  same  diffi- 
culty is  felt  also  in  regard  to  pew  holders  ;  sometimes  there  are 
temporary  and  sometim'^s  permanent  absences  without  notifica- 
tion to  the  rector  or  any  of  the  clergy. 

Q.  It  is  said  in  the  report  of  tliis  committee  (page  24),  that 
there  is  so  little  interest  in  the  vestry  elections  of  Trinity  parish, 
that  in  eight  out  of  the  past  ten  years,  an  average  of  hardly  one 
in  ten  of  the  corporators  cared  to  appear  ;  is  this  state  of  things 
peculiar  to  Trinity  parish,  and  does  it  indicate  "  torpor,"  im- 
puted in  the  report  ?  A.  A  like  statement  might  be  made,  I 
apprehend,  in  regard  to  every  parish  in  the  city  of  New- York  ; 
I  was  rector  for  nearly  ten  years  of  a  large  parish  in  the  city, 
All  Saints,  which  numbered  from  100  to  150  corporators  ;  I 
never  saw  at  any  election,  having  presided  at  all,  of  wardens  or 
vestrymen,  more  than  four  or  five  voters,  except  on  one  occasion 
at  a  period  of  great  excitement  in  the  church,  when  there  were 
about  thirty  present  ;  I  do  not  consider  the  non-attendance  of 
the  corporators  on  these  occasions,  as  any  evidence  whatever  of 
a  want  of  interest  in  parish  matters  or  as  a  sign  of  "torpor,"  but 
rather  as  a  mark  of  their  entire  satisfaction  with  the  administra- 
tion of  the  parish.  In  the  case  of  All  Saints  church,  the  parish 
was  united  and  highly  prosperous. 

I;.  Q.  It  is  stated  in  the  report  of  this  committee,  p.  21.,  that  the 
effect  of  this  system,  (that  is,  the  system  by  which  Trinity  Church 
has  contributed  to  other  parishes,  wholly  in  the  way  of  pecu- 
niary grants,  made  either  in  specific  sums  or  in  annual  appro- 
priations, terminated  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Vestry,)  as  appears 
from  the  evidence,  has  been  to  injure  instead  of  promoting  the 
independence  of  the  parishes  thus  aided.  Is  the  statement  cor- 
rect that  the  making  pecuniary  grants  in  either  of  such  forms, 
or  secured  by  mortgages,  has  had  that  effect  ?  State,  also,  what 
effect,  if  any,  has  aid  in  these  forms  had  upon  independence  of 
speech  and  freedom  of  action  on  the  part  of  parishes  and  clergy- 
men thus  aided,  where  they  meet  in  the  diocesan  conventions 
and  other  church  associations,  and  where  there  are  diversities  of 
opinion  as  to  matters  of  morals  and  doctrines  ?  A.  I  do  not 
think  that  the  aid  bestowed  in  any  of  the  forms  mentioned,  has 


160 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


had  the  slightest  effect  upon  the  independence  of  speech  and 
freedom  of  action* of  the  clergy  or  laity  of  the  parishes  aided.  I 
have  had  some  opportunity  of  noticing  the  course  pursued  by 
clergy  and  laity  in  our  diocesan  convention,  having  been  for 
twenty  years  Assistant  Secretary  and  Secretary  of  the  same,  dur- 
ing the  greater  part  of  which  time  there  prevailed  great  diver- 
sities of  opinion.  In  looking  over  the  list  of  parishes  whose 
churches  have  been  mortgaged  to  Trinity  Church,  I  find  eight, 
the  clergy  and  lay  delegates  of  which,  for  a  series  of  years,  on 
all  leading  questions  spoke  and  voted  differently  from  the  Rec-' 
tor  and  lay  delegates  of  Trinity.  Two  of  these  are  mortgaged 
for  $25,000,  two  for  |20,000,  one  for  |5,000,  the  other  three  for 
smaller  sums.  So,  also,  in  regard  to  the  churches  which  have 
received  grants  of  land  and  money,  or  annual  stipends.  I  find 
nearly  thirty  which  have  taken  the  same  independent  course  in 
convention,  without  regard  to  the  course  of  Trinity.  My 
opinion  of  the  clergy  and  laity  of  the  diocese  of  New-York  is 
such  that  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  practicable  for  any  corpora- 
tion to  buy  their  opinions  or  their  votes.  Of  the  churches  last 
referred  to,  six  received  gifts  of  money  and  land,  and  twelve  re- 
ceived gifts  of  money  alone,  two  received  gifts  of  land  and  a 
stipend,  three  received  gifts  of  land  alone,  six  received  gifts  of 
stipend  alone.  My  knowledge  of  the  votes  of  the  lay  delegates 
and  clergy  of  the  several  parishes  is  derived  from  the  fact  that, 
lor  a  series  of  years  it  became  my  duty  at  every  convention  to 
call  the  ayes  and  noes  on  very  many  questions. 

Q.  In  applications  for  aid,  has  Trinity  Church,  in  your  opin- 
ion, favored  those  whose  party  views  were  similar  to  her  own,  or 
has  she  refused  aid  on  the  avowed  ground  that  the  views  of  the 
applicants  were  not  coincident  with  her  own  ?  A.  I  do  not  be- 
lieve that  the  question  of  church  politics  has  ever  entered  into 
the  distribution  of  the  gifts  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  I 
never  have  heard  of  any  application  for  aid  which  was  refused 
upon  the  ground  that  the  parties  making  it  differed  in  theologi- 
cal or  ecclesiastical  opinions  from  the  rector  and  vestry  of 
Trinity  Church. 

Q.  What  proportion  of  the  whole  number  of  Episcopal  churches 
in  the  city  of  New- York  have  received  aid,  in  some  form,  from 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF   TRINITY  CHURCH. 


161 


Trinity  Church  ?  A.  There  are  about  fifty  Episcopal  churches 
in  New-York  city,  and  I  think  all  of  them,  except  two,  have 
received  aid  from  Trinity  Church.  Of  these  two,  one,  the 
Church  of  the  Holy  Communion,  was  built  by  one  person,  and 
the  other,  the  Church  of  the  Incarnation,  was  built  by  the 
wealthy  congregation  of  Grace  Church. 

By  the  committee : 

Q.  What  appropriations  have  been  made  by  Trinity  Church 
during  the  last  three  years  previous  to  April,  1855,  to  institu- 
tions of  charity,  benevolence,  or  learning,  in  the  city  of  New- 
York'?  A.  I  do  not  remember  of  any  made  within  that  specific 
period.  Those  that  I  have  already  named,  were  made  either 
before  or  after  the  period  mentioned. 

Q.  What  means  have  you  of  knowing  what  motives  govern 
Trinity  Church  in  her  grants  to  other  churches  1  A.  J  have 
been  connected  with  Trinity  Church  as  one  of  the  ministers  for 
nearly  ten  years,  and  have  been  in  the  habit  of  frequent  con- 
verse with  the  rector  and  several  of  the  leading  vestrymen  in 
regard  to  their  benefactions. 

Q.  Have  the  clergy,  other  than  the  rector,  any  voice  or  vote 
in  making  gifts  or  grants  1  A.  The  assistant  ministers  are  not 
members  of  the  vestry,  and  therefore  are  not  entitled  to  vote 
upon  such  questions.  Whatever  influence  they  may  have  in 
such  grants  arises  from  their  official  relations  to  the  vestry. 

Q.  When  you  speak  of  aid  to  churches,  do  you  include  those 
whicli  give  mortgages  for  what  they  receive  ?  A.I  do,  because 
it  is  perfectly  well  understood  that  those  mortgages  are  not  to 
pay  interest,  and  are  never  to  be  collected  unless  under  very 
extraordinary  circumstances. 

Q.  Do  you  or  do  you  not  know  that  when  such  mortgages  are 
renewed,  the  accumulated  interest  is  added  to  the  principal  7 
A.  I  have  no  knowledge  on  this  particular  point,  but  have  never 
heard  or  known  that  the  payment  of  any  interest  has  been  ex- 
acted. I  have  never  heard  of  an  instance  where  the  accumu- 
lated interest  has  been  added  to  the  principal. 

11 


162 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Q.  You  spoke  of  new  arrangements  having  been  made  within 
the  past  two  years,  can  you  fix  the  time  more  definitely  ]  A. 
I  was  assigned  to  my  present  position  early  in  June,  1855. 

Q.  Are  there  not  in  Trinity  Church  and  all  her  chapels  some 
paying  pews  1    A .  There  are. 

Q.  Is  there  not,  sir,  a  great  want  of  churches  in  certain  parts 
of  the  city  oi  New^-York  1  A.  There  is  undoubtedly  a  want  of 
church  accommodations  in  the  city  of  New-York. 

Q.  Is  there  a  single  Episcopal  church  in  the  4th,  6th,  13th  or 
14th  wards,  in  the  city  of  New-York  1  A.  I  cannot  answer  that 
question  without  a  map  of  the  city. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us,  sir,  when  the  present  Trinity  church  was 
built?    A.  It  was  consecrated  in  1846.  , 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  what  it  cost  1  A.  I  do  not  remember  the 
cost. 

Q.  When  was  Trinity  chapel  built?  A.  It  was  consecrated 
in  1855. 

Q.  What  did  it  cost?  A.  |227,000,  according  to  the  report  of 
the  vestry. 

Q.  How  many  persons  will  Trinity  church  and  Trinity  chapel 
seat?  A.  Trinity  church  will  seat,  as  at  present  arranged,  about 
1,200;  Trinity  chapel  about  1,000  persons.  I  have  seen  2,000 
persons  in  Trinity  church  on  special  occasions. 

Q.  In  yaur  opinion,  has  the  Episcopal  church  kept  pace  with 
the  increase  of  population  of  the  city  ?   A.  It  has  not. 

Q.  Do  you  consider  that  the  church  accommodations  in  the 
city  have  kept  pace  with  the  increase  of  Episcopalians  in  the 
city  ?  A.  I  think  it  has,  and  more  ;  inasmuch  as  the  increase  of 
population  of  the  city  of  New-York  has  been  very  largely  from 
foreign  countries,  from  New  England,  and  other  parts  of  the 
United  States,  where  the  members  of  the  Episcopal  church  have 
not  been  numerous. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


1«9 


Q.  Do  you  thiHk  church  accommodations  of  all  denominationa 
iave  inci-eased  proportionately  with  the  increase  of  population? 
A.  I  do  not  think  that  it  has  fully.    It  has  measurably. 

Q.  Do  you  know,  sir,  whether  St.  Matthew's  church  was  shut 
up  and  offered  for  sale  ?   A,  I  have  heard  so. 

Q.  Was  Zion  church,  near  the  Five  Points,  sold  to  the  Ro- 
manists? A.  Yes,  sir,  it  was;  the  congregation  having  removed 
up  town  and  built  another  church. 

Q.  Was  Christ  cTiurch,  in  Anthony-street,  closed  and  soldi 
A.  It  was,  under  the  like  circumstances. 

Q.  Were  the  three  last  named  churches  Episcopal  churches? 
A.  They  were. 

Q.  In  the  cases  last  mentioned,  wherethe  churches  were  sold) 
were  churches  required  for  the  purpose  of  accommodating  EpiS' 
copalians?    A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  St.  Matthew's  church  made  appli- 
cation to  Trinity  for  aid  ?  A.  I  do  know  that  she  made  applica- 
tion, and  that  she  received  aid,  and  that  the  rector  addressed 
two  letters  of  thanks,  on  behalf  of  the  vestry  of  St.  Matthew's, 
for  such  aid. 

Q.  How  long  was  this  before  said  church  was  closed  ?  A.  I 
don't  know. 

Q.  Do  yon  know  that  Trinity  church  refused  her  aid  1  A.  I 
have  heard  so. 

Q.  Can  you  state  the  number  of  Episcopalians  in  the  city  of 
New- York.    A.  No,  I  cannot. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  number  of  Episcopalians  that  belong  to. 
Trinity  and  her  chapel]  A.  From  five  to  six  thousand,  inclu- 
ding men,  women  and  children. 

Q.  What  proportion  is  that  of  the  whole  number  of  Episcopa- 
lians in  the  city,  as  near  as  you  can  judgel  A.  I  cannot  answer 
this  question,  for  want  of  sufficient  data.    I  will  examine  the 


164 


KEPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


subject  and  give  an  answer.  I  estimate  the  number  of  Episco- 
palians in  the  city  of  New-York  at  from  40,000  to  50,000. 

Q.  Could  Trinity  church  now  rent  her  pews  in  the  lower  down 
town  churches?    A.  She  could  not,  except  in  a  few  Instances. 

Q.  Did  not  that  fact  necessarily  compel  Trinity  to  make  those 
churches  free?  A.  No;  for  she  could  have  done  as'  Grace 
church,  St.  George's  church,  Christ  church,  Zion  church  did; 
sold  her  churches  and  built  new  ones  up  town.  But  preferring 
to  keep  her  churches  down  town,  in  the  changed  condition  ol 
the  lower  part  of  the  city,  it  would  not  have  been  practicable  to 
have  rented  her  pews. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  other  clergy  attached  to  the 
chapels  of  Trinity  make  annual  return  of  the  new  male  com- 
municants to  the  rector?  A.  I  presume  that  they  do;  I  am 
asked  as  one  of  the  clergy,  I  presume  he  asks  the  others. 

Q.  Can  you  state  whether  the  clergy  who  make  these  returns 
from  the  various  chapels,  are  allowed  to  see  the  returns  thus 
made  ?    A.  I  have  no  doubt  but  they  would  if  they  asked  it. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  them,  previous  to  the  report  of  Trinity 
church  to  the  Legislature  in  1856?  A.  I  cannot  say  whether  I 
have  or  not;  I  never  had  occasion  to  look  at  the  list. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  Trinity  church  has  ever  foreclosed 
any  of  the  mortgages  taken  for  grants  made  by  her  ?  A.  I  do 
not. 

Q.  What  does  it  cost  Trinity  church  to  support  the  two  lay 
assistants  you  spoke  of?    A.  Their  present  stipend  is $150  each. 

Q.  Of  whom  does  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church  consist  ?  A.  Ihe 
rector,  two  church  wardens,  and  twenty  vestrymen. 

Q.  What  other  otficers  has  Trinity  church  besides  the  mem- 
bers of  the  vestry  and  her  clergymen.  A.  A  comptroller  and 
elerk  of  the  vestry,  both  of  whom  are  members  of  the  vestry^  a 
collector,  and  one  clerk  in  the  office. 

Adjourned  to  3^  o'clock,  Monday  P.  M. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


1B5 


Monday  afternoon,  February  6th,  3^  o'clock  P.  M. 

Present — Senate  Committee — Senators  Spencer,  Noxon,  and 
Bamsey.    Counsel  as  before,  Judge  Parker  and  O.  Meads',  Esq. 

TESTIMONY  INTRODUCED  BY  THE  VESTRY. 

*restimony  of  Rev.  Benjamin  I.  Haight,  continued. 
Q.  Do  you  think  Trinity  Church  has  done  its  utmost  to  make 
the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation,  available  for  the 
founding,  support,  or  promotion  of  religious,  charitable,  or  edu- 
cational instructions  or  purposes  1    A.  As  the  result  of  many 
years  observation,  during  the  last  ten  of  which,  I  have  been 
frequently  in  converse  with  the  Rector  and  several  of  the  senior 
members  of  the  corporation,  in  reference  to  the  appropriation 
of  their  funds  to  religious,  charitable,  and  educational  purpo- 
ses, I  answer  that  I  believe  the  Vestry  has  always  been  solicit- 
ous to  make  their  property  as  available  as  possible  for  these 
great  purposes,  and,  that  when  they  have  declined  applications 
tor  benefactions,  or  refrained  fro^  entering  upon,  or  prosecu- 
ting any  enterprise^brought  before,  them,  either  by  members  of 
their  own  body,  or  by  others,  it  has  not  been  from  any  want  of 
interest  in  schemes  and  plans  of  christian  benevolence,  or  with 
any  view  of  increasing  their  own  estate,  but  solely  from  pru- 
dential considerations  mainly  growing  out  of  their  heavy  debt, 
which  has  accumulated  solely  from  their  pecuniary  grants.  I 
do  not  believe  that  any  other  body  of  intelligent  and  prudent 
christian  men  of  the  same  number,  and  chosen  in  the  same 
way — that  is,  by  a  popular  constituency — would  have  done 
more  than  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  as  constituted,  for  the 
last  quarter  of  a  century. 

Q.  Will  you  name  the  free  Episcopal  Churches  in  the  city  ol 
New-York?  A.  All  Angels,  Epiphany,  Holy  Comforter,  Our 
Saviour,  Holy  Communion,  Holy  Evangelist's,  Holy  Innocents, 
Holy  Martyrs,  Nativity,  St.  Cornelius,  St.  John  the  Evangelist's, 
St.  Mary's,  and  St.  Michael's  ;  the  foregoing  have  church  edifices 
proper.  Besides  these,  there  are  the  following  free  congrega- 
tions worshiping  in  halls :  the  Messiah  and  St.  Ann's.  Besides 
these,  the  following  are  at  present  suspended :  Good  Shepherd, 


166 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


temporarily,  the  church  being  constructing  ;  St.  Barnabas,  St, 
Matthew's,  and  St  Simon's.  The  former  free  church  of  St.  Jud& 
has  been  merged  in  the  church  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist. 

By  the  Committee  (a  map  presented): 

Q.  Are  there  any  Episcopal  churches  in  the  4th,  6th,  13tb 
and  14th  wards  of  the  city  of  New- York?    A.  There  are  none. 

Q.  In  which  of  these  wards  was  Zion  church  situated?  A.  In 
the  6th. 

Q.  After  viewing  that  map,  do  you  still  say  that  Zion  church 
was  not  needed  there  1  A.  Such  a  question  was  not  put  to  me. 
The  question  was  whether  it  was  required  for  Episcopalians  in 
that  vicinity.  I  answered  that  I  thought  not,  and  I  think  so 
still.  If  I  had  been  asked  whether  it  was  not  desirable  that 
there  should  be  mission  churches  in  that  and  the  other  wards, 
for  the  purpose  of  supplying  the  ministrations  of  the  gospel  to 
the  destitute  of  all  classes  and  denominations,  with  a  view  to 
their  spiritual  benefit,  and  gathering  them  into  the  Episcopal 
church,  I  should  have  answered  that  I  did  think  it  desirable. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  average  number  of  persons  that  th& 
free  churches  you  have  named  would  accommodate?  A.  From 
450  to  500  each. 

By  Counsel  for  Trinity  Church  r 

Q.  Though  there  are  no  Episcopal  churches  in  the  wards 
named,  are  there  Episcopal  churches  close  upon  their  confines  1 
A.  In  the  vicinity  of  the  4th  ward  there  are  two  large  churches, 
in  the  vicinity  of  the  6th  there  is  one,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  13th 
there  are  two,  and  in  the  vicinity  of  the  14th  there  are  two. 

Rt.  Rev.  Horatio  Potter  called  and  sworn  r 

Q.  What  is  your  place  of  residence,  and  your  office  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  church  ?  A.  My  place  of  residence  is  in 
the  city  of  New- York,  my  office  is  Provisional  Bishop  of  the  dio- 
cese of  New-York. 

Q.  What  opportunities  do  your  official  position  and  duties 
afford  you  for  obtaining  information  in  regard  to  the  condition. 


ON  AFFAIKS  OF  TMNITY  CHUBCH.  167 

wants  and  interests  of  the  various  congregations  in  your  diocese? 
A.  It  is  made  my  duty  by  canon  to  visit  periodically  all  the 
parishes  of  the  diocese  and  inquire  into  their  condition,  and  to 
maintain  at  all  times  general  superintendence  over  the  churches 
of  the  diocese.  To  which  I  may  add,  that  persons  belonging 
to  the  several  parishes  naturally  come  to  me  for  advice  and 
direction. 

Q.  Has  the  law  of  1814  in  regard  to  Trinity  Church  been  ac- 
quiesced in  or  noti  I  think  it  has  been  generally;  no  person 
has  appeared  in  the  courts  to  object  to  its  constitutionality;  had 
there  been  any  real  confidence  in  the  existence  of  a  right  in 
members  of  other  and  independent  congregations  to  be  corpora- 
tors of  Trinity  Church,  undoubtedly  that  right  would  have  been 
asserted  and  maintained  in  the  courts,  both  before  and  after 
1814;  for  more  than  thirty  years  after  the  passage  of  the  law  of 
1814,  no  attempt  was  made  to  procure  its  repeal;  there  might 
be  cases  of  individual  discontent,  as  there  will  be  with  things 
most  just  and  reasonable,  but  they  were  of  no  account  compared 
with  the  general  acquiescence- and  the  absence  of  all  formal  at- 
tempts, either  in  the  courts  or  before  the  Legislature,  to  object. 

Q.  What,  in  your  opinion,  would  be  the  effect  of  throwing 
open  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  and  allowing  all  per- 
sons in  New- York,  in  communion  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
church,  to  become  corporators  in  that  bodyl  A.  The  effect 
would  be  disastrous  in  very  many  ways;  in  the  first  place,  as  it 
would  be,  in  my  opinion,  a  violation  of  the  original  meaning 
and  intent  of  the  charter,  a  meaning  and  intent  recognized  and 
admitted  for  fifty  years,  it  would  constitute  an  act  of  public 
fraud  and  immorality,  so  gross  as  to  be  of  evil  influence  through- 
out the  whole  country;  but  besides  that,  the  immediate  opera- 
tion in  the  city  of  New-York  would  be  extremely  injurious  to 
the  peace  and  well  being  of  the  church ;  all  the  parishes  in  the 
city  would  be  brought  into  conflict  with  Trinity  Church  and 
with  each  other.  Trinity  Church  is  a  parish  like  any  other  in  the 
city,  except  as  to  the  amount  of  its  wealth.  Persons  who  were 
corporators  in  an  independeet  parish,  having  its  own  peculiar 
interests  and  objects,  would  be  corporators  also  in  Triniy  church, 


168 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


"where  they  would  be  present  by  their  representatives  to  embarrass 
and  control  her  parochial  operations,  and  to  take  from  her  her 
means  for  their  own  purposes ;  such  foreign  corporators  might, 
and  I  believe  would  have  selfish  reasons  for  desiring  to  cripple 
the  parochial  work  of  Trinity  Church,  while  they  sought  to  build 
up  rival  churches  of  their  own. 

Under  such  a  system,  Trinity  Church  would  soon  cease  to  be 
a  parish,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term.  Her  parochial  work 
would  be  reduced  and  gradually  ruined;  and  she  would  become 
the  mere  holder  of  a  fund,  a  mere  financial  body,  for  whose 
wealth  many  thousands  of  persons,  cut  up  into  conflicting  and 
rival  sections,  would  be  scrambling.  The  annual  elections 
would  present  a  scene  most  grossly  unbecoming,  highly  injuri- 
ous to  the  character  of  the  church  and  to  the  interests  of  religion, 
for  those  elections  would  be  sure  to  be  severely  contested  elee- 
tions,  where  several  thousand  persons  would  have  a  right  to 
vote,  and  where  there  would  be  great  temptation  among  the 
outstanding  congregations  to  swell  the  number  of  their  voters, 
by  all  sorts  of  means.  There  would  be  a  temptation  to  unfair 
combinations  among  dilferent  parishes  and  sections  of  the  city  to 
procure  grants  in  favor  of  each  other.  All  this  would  be  a  per- 
fect anomaly  in  the  Episcopal  church.  I  know  of  no  cases  in 
which  the  same  person  is  corporator  in  the  different  parishes, 
the  parishes  being  in  a  position  to  be  rivals  to  each  other.  There 
are  instances,  probably,  in  which  a  person  is  a  corporator  in  a 
city  parish  and  also  in  a  rural  parish,  where  he  has  his  country 
residence;  but  this  is  attended  with  no  serious  evil.  In  every 
system,  whether  of  the  family,  the  State,  or  the  church,  where  a 
person  is  present  within,  to  influence,  to  control,  he  is  supposed 
to  be  a  member  of  the  system,  with  a  kindly  interest  in  it,  with 
a  generous  devotion  to  its  welfare,  and  subject  to  all  its  laws  and 
authorities.  But  if  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  were 
thrown  open,  you  would  probably  have  vestrymen  present  to 
vote  away  its  money,  to  control  its  counsels,  who  were  enemies 
and  aliens;  interested  in  other  parishes,  but  not  in  Trinity 
Church;  not  subject  to  its  rector,  not  under  its  religious  influ- 
ence, but  present  only  to  vex  and  harrass.    This  is  not  only  a 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITV  CHURCH. 


169 


violation  of  all  the  principles  of  the  church,  which  require  that 
every  person  present  in  a  parish  with  any  rights  and  privileges, 
shall  be  amenable  to  the  spiritual  authority  of  the  rector,  but  is 
a  violation  of  common  sense,  which  requires  that  those  who-vote 
or  rule  in  a  body,  shall  be  bona  fide  members  of  it,  and  owe  it  a 
hearty  allegiance. 

Q.  What  is  your  view  in  regard  to  the  course  of  Trinity 
Church  in  rebuilding  T^iuity  Church  at  the  head  of  Wall-street, 
and  in  building  Trinity  Chapel,  in  Twenty-fifth-street "?  A.  I  think 
it  was  a  very  proper  course.  It  was  natural  they  should  desire 
to  retain  the  old  site  down  town,  so  long  endeared  to  them,  and 
it  was  very  important  that  the  lower  part  of  the  city,  which  was 
in  a  way  to  be  abandoned  by  all  the  other  Episcopal  congrega- 
tions, should  not  be  abandoned  by  them.  They  owe  it  to  the 
lower  part  of  the  city  to  maintain  themselves  there,  among  the 
poor,  and  their  property  enabled  them  to  do  so.  In  regard  to 
the  building  of  Trinity  Chapel,  up  town,  many  of  their  old  par- 
ishioners had  moved  far  up  town,  with  only  very  moderate 
means,  in  many  cases,  and  it  seemed  the  duty  of  Trinity  Church 
to  follow  them  and  provide  for  them,  and  to  seek  to  retain  them 
as  her  parishioners.  The  erection  of  Trinity  Chapel  was  there- 
fore a  proper  measure.  As  to  the  costly  character  of  the  two 
edifices,  I  consider  that  Trinity  Church  only  did  her  duty  in 
making  them  models  of  ecclesiastical  architecture.  Her  wealth 
had  been  created  mainly  by  the  growth  of  the  city.  She  there- 
fore owed  to  the  city  some  contribution  in  the  way  of  beautiful 
and  magnificent  edifices.  And  with  her  wealth,  she  owed  it 
equally  to  the  character  of  her  own  communion.  Hau  Trinity 
Church,  with  its  means,  limited  itself  to  the  erection  of  build- 
ings of  a  moderate  cost,  I  have  no  doubt  the  parish  would  have 
been  severely  censured,  both  by  the  church  and  by  the  commu- 
nity generally.  As  a  general  thing,  I  believe  a  few  costly 
churches  are  of  great  utility  to  the  interests  of  religion.  I  have 
no  doubt  that  Westminister  Abbey  has,  in  the  course  of  ages, 
been  worth  to  the  influence  of  Divine  Truth  in  the  world,  vastly 
more  than  all  tliat  it  ever  cost. 


170 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE. 


Q.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  effect  of  the  course  of  Trinity 
Church,  in  giving  her  aid  to  churches  in  the  form  of  loans 
upon  mortgages,  rather  than  in  the  form  of  absolute  grants? 
A.  Those  loans  were  absolute  grants  in  reality,  nobody  ever  sup- 
posed that  the  interest  or  the  principal  would  be  called  for  by 
Trinity  Church.  They  never  have  been,  in  a  single  instance, 
although  the  cases  have  been  very  numerous,  in  which  land 
mortgages  have  been  given.  When  I  consecrate  a  church,  I  al- 
ways wish  to  know  whether  there  be  any  debt.  I  never  regard 
a  mortgage  given  to  Trinity  Church,  in  the  light  of  a  debt.  I 
have  never  perceived,  I  do  not  believe,  that  such  mortgages,  in 
any  way  affect  the  independence  of  ministers,  or  laymen.  It 
is  very  common  indeed,  to  see  the  minister,  and  laymen  of  a 
Church,  subject  to  a  mortgage,  voting  against  measures  favored 
by  Trinity  Church.  In  convention,  I  doubt  whether  any  one 
remembers  or  reflects,  whether  mortgages  exist  in  particular 
quarters  or  not.  The  effect  of  these  mortgages  has,  I  have  no 
doubt,  been  important  in  preventing  the  property  of  churches 
from  being  sold  and  alienated  from  their  sacred  use.  And  this, 
I  have  always  understood,  was  the  sole  object  of  Trinity  Church 
in  requiring  them. 

Q.  St.  Matthew's  Church  in  New- York  has  been  recently 
closed.  Was  it  the  duty  of  Trinity  Church  under  the  circum- 
stances, to  have  preventefl  that  result  1  A.  I  cannot  say,  that, 
under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  I  would  have  advised 
Trinity  Church  to  do  differently  from  what  she  has  done. 

Q.  What  is  your  view  of  the  past  management  of  Trinity 
Church  in  relation  to  the  poor  ?  A.  Trinity  Church  has  done  a 
great  deal  for  the  poor  in  many  ways — She  has  provided  free 
education  for  the  poor,  in  schools  and  colleges — She  has  assisted 
in  the  erection  of  between  one  and  two  hundred  (nearly  two 
hundred)  churches  in  the  State.  To  say  the  least,  a  very  large 
portion  of  all  these  grants  must  be  considered  as  assistance 
granted  to  those  who  had  not  the  means  of  doing  all  for  them- 
selves. She  has  granted  annuities  in  many  cases  to  aged  clergy- 
men and  to  the  widows  and  orphans  of  deceased  clergymen. 
She  has  schools  for  poor  children  connected  with  several  of  her 
churches  and  chapels.    And  finally,  all  her  churches,  down 


ori  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHtTRCH. 


171 


town,  Trinity  Church,  St.  Paul's,  St.  John's  and  Old  St.  George's, 
supported  by  her,  are,  to  a  very  large  extent,  in  the  nature  of  a 
free  provision  for  the  poor.  And  besides  these,  there  are  several 
other  churches,  situated  in  districts  much  occupied  by  the  poor, 
whi.h  are  largely  assisted  by  Trinity  Church. 

Q.  It  is  alleged  that  in  some  districts  of  New-York  there  is  a 
want  of  adequate  religious  provision  for  the  poor ;  can  you  state 
any  facts  bearing  upon  this  matter?  A.  Some  portions  of  the 
city  are  chiefly  occupied  by  Germans;  other  inhabitants  remove 
from  those  sections.  There  are  consequently  fewer  persons  than 
■we  might  at  first  suppose  capable  of  being  gathered  into  Episco- 
pal congregations.  There  may  be,  and  probably  is,  after  all,  a 
deficiency  of  church  accommodation,  but  it  is  not  as  great  in 
some  quarters  as  it  seems  to  be. 

By  the  Committee : 

Q.  Do  you  think  in  seeking  to  retain  the  parishioners  in 
Trinity  chapel,  it  was  right  to  seek  to  cut  them  olT  as  corpora- 
tors ?  A.  I  have  not  understood  that  it  was  contemplated  by 
Trinity  church  to  cut  off  her  parishioners  as  corporators.  In 
the  abstract  I  should  say  it  would  not  be  right  to  do  so.  I  sup- 
pose it  was  intended  to  prevent  a  rush  of  strangers  from  com- 
ing in  and  making  themselves  corporators  from  interested 
motives.  • 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  the  lease  under  which  the  pews  in 
Trinity  chapel  were  leased?    A.  I  have  not. 

[Lease  shown  the  witness.) 

Q.  After  examining  the  lease,  do  you  not  think  it  would  cut 
them  off  as  corporators  ?   A.  It  seems  to  do  so,  sir. 

Q.  What  appropriations  were  made  by  Trinity  Church,  for 
three  years  previous  to  April  1855,  to  institutions  of  charity, 
benevolence  or  learning  in  the  city  of  New-York  ?  A.  I  have 
been  in  the  city  of  New-York  only  a  portion  of  that  time,  about 
a  year  and  three  or  four  months,  and  I  am  only  generally  cog- 
nizant of  the  fact  that  Trinity  Church  has  been  continually 
making  grants  to  one  object  and  another,  without  fixing  my 


192 


B.EPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


attention  to  any  in  particular.  I  cannot  say  whether  the  grants 
here  referred  to  are  included  in  the  grants  that  have  been  made. 

Q.  Can  you  mention  any  appropriations  of  the  kind  spoken  of, 
made  at  any  time,  and  if  so,  at  what  time,  and  what  Were  they  1 
A.  I  know  that  grants  have  been  made  to  Columbia  College  and  * 
I  believe  to  Trinity  school.  I  am  not  able  to  answer  fully  ; 
cannot  specify  the  time.  I  may  be  permitted  to  say  that  my  at- 
tention has  been  more  particularly  directed  to  grants  at  large 
for  church  buildings  than  to  those  objects. 

Q.  Can  you  say  that  you  know  of  any  such  appropriations, 
made  within  the  last  ten  or  twenty  years  1  A.  I  cannot  say 
that  I  can. 

Q.  You  answer  the  first  question  that  the  law  of  1814  has 
been  acquiesced  in;  has  it  been  by  the  church  in  the  city  of 
New-York  generally,  outside  of  Trinity  1  A.  My  impression  is, 
that  until  within  a  recent  period,  twelve  or  fifteen  years,  it  has 
been. 

Q.  During  that  twelve  or  fifteen  years,  has  not  (he  great  body 
of  the  Episcopal  church,  outside  of  Trinity,  in  the  city  of  New- 
York,  been  dissatisfied  with  the  law  of  1814?  A.  I  should  not 
think  so  ;  but,  as  I  said  before,  my  acquaintance  with  New- York, 
until  within  a  year  or  two,  has  been  only  a  very  general  one, 
and  my  opinion  is  partly  formed  from  what  I  have  known 
myself,  and  partly  an  inference  from  the  absence  of  any  formal 
attempt  to  controvert  the  law. 

Q.  Previous  to  the  law  of  1814,  did,  or  did  not  the  inhabitants 
of  New-York,  in  communion  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
church,  outside  of  Trinity,  exercise  and  enjoy  the  right  of  voting 
for  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  church?  A.  I  have 
always  understood  that  they  did  not. 

Q.  Do  you  not  understand  that  right  to  have  been  guaranteed 
under  the  charter  to  those  in  communion  with  the  church,  and 
not  belonging  to  the  parish  of  Trinity  church,  in  the  city  ot  New- 
York?  A.  I  do  not.  I  may  add,  that  the  charter  of  my  own 
late  parish,  St.  Peter's,  Albany,  is  in  the  same  terms,  and  was 


Oir  AFFAIBS  OF  THIIIITT  CIHTHCH. 


173 


never  held  to  guarantee  rights  to  any  one  outside  the  parish. 
When  the  second  congregation  was  formed,  St.  Paul's,  in  this 
city,  (Albany,)  St.  Peter's  church,  having  such  a  charter,  had 
property,  to  which  the  members  of  St.  Paul's  church  never  set 
up  any  claim. 

Q.  "What  difficulties  would  arise  in  each  of  the  Episcopal 
churches  in  the  city  of  New-York  sending  a  delegate  to  a  con- 
vention to  choose  wardens  and  vestrymen  to  take  care  of  the 
fund  now  administered  by  Trinity  church  ?  A.  I  think  it  would 
be  possible  to  suggest  many  difficulties  of  detail.  But  I  have  a 
general  answer.  The  church  is  governed  in  accordance  with 
long  tried,  well  settled,  traditional  principles  and  practices,  the 
precise  nature  of  which  is  thoroughly  understood  from  long 
experience.  The  system  suggested  would  be  an  entirely  anomaly 
in  the  church,  both  in  this  country  and  in  England,  and  I  should 
think  a  very  dangerous  one  to  adopt. 

Q.  What  has  the  government  of  the  church  to  do  with  the 
administration  of  this  fund?  A.  The  church  knows  of  no  dis- 
tinction between  the  administration  of  church  funds,  and 
matters  purely  spiritual.  They  are  all  part  and  parcel  of  the 
same  system.  She  doe?  not  know  of  money  in  any  secular 
sense.  I  may  add,  in  the  case  of  every  known  church  in  this 
country  and  in  England,  the  same  body  that  regulates  the  spir- 
itual concerns  of  a  parish  regulates  also  its  church  fund  as  a 
religious  act. 

Q.  Is  not  the  administration  of  this  fund  entirely  and  abso- 
lutely separate  from  all  the  religious  and  ecclesiastical  care  of 
the  church,  as  a  religious  society  ?    A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Wherein  does  she  exercise  any  control  1  A.  The  imme- 
diate disposal  of  this  fund  is  ordered  in  the  presence  of  and  by 
the  rector,  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  the  parish.  They  are 
both  immediately  responsible  to  me  as  the  bishop  of  the  diocese, 
and  are  amenable  to  the  church  of  this  diocese  assembled  in 
convention.  I  do  not  mean,  however,  to  be  understood  that  I 
supervise  the  details  of  appropriations,  or  that  my  assent  is 
essential  to  the  validity  of  any  grants  by  the  vestry. 


174 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Q.  Is  not  the  care  of  the  bishop,  rector,  wardens  and  vestry- 
men, theoretical,  and  the  practical  care  of  this  fund  entrusted  to 
a  committee  of  the  wardens  and  vestrymen'?  A.  I  think  the 
care  of  the  bishop,  rector,  wardens  and  vestrymen,  is  not  theo- 
retical, but  practical,  though  the  bishop,  of  course,  is  not  a 
member  of  this  body,  and  has  only  a  general  oversight  over  the 
afifairs  of  the  church,  As  in  any  large  body,  which  in  this  case 
amounts  to  twenty-three  persons,  there  is  a  sub-committee  which, 
however,  takes  cognizance  not  merely  of  money  matters,  but  of 
matters  bearing  upon  (he  spiritual  well-being  of  the  parish,  and 
which  committee  is  appointed  for  the  convenience  of  arranging 
and  preparing  business  for  the  full  meeting  of  the  vestry,  where 
it  is  deliberately  passed  upon.  And  I  have  to  say,  furthermore, 
that  the  care  of  the  bishop  and  the  rector  is  a  reality,  inasmuch 
as  if  the  members  of  the  vestry  violated  their  duty  they  would 
be  subject  to  be  admonished  and  disciplined  by  the  rector,  and 
if  they  and  the  rector  together,  either  or  both,  clearly  violated 
their  duty  so  as  to  be  adjudged  guilty  of  an  offence  capable  of 
being  made  evident  to  me  or  the  bishop,  they  would  certainly  be 
liable  to  be  disciplined  by  him. 

Q.  Do  the  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church  report 
to  the  bishop  or  to  the  convention  their  action  in  relation  to 
grants  or  aid  to  churches,  or  in  relation  to  their  general  affairs  ? 
A.  They  do  not  formally  make  a  full  report  of  all  grants,  but 
from  the  interest  which  attaches  to  the  affairs  of  that  parish,  I 
believe  its  internal  business  is  better  known  to  the  bishop  and 
church  at  large,  than  the  affairs  of  any  other  wealthy  Episcopal 
congregation  in  the  city  of  New- York,  •  I  am  not  aware  that 
there  is  any  concealment. 

Q.  Do  they  make  an  informal  report?  A.  Various  reports 
have  been  made  at  different  times  of  the  grants  of  Trinity  Church, 
and  I  believe  their  proceedings  generally  transpire  speedily.  In 
some  instances  action  is  reported  to  me  immediately. 

Q.  If  they  make  no  report  to  you,  how  have  you  any  super- 
vision over  their  affairs,  except  theoretically  1  A.  The  general 
course  of  the  administration  of  affairs  in  the  parish  is  well 
known.    I  presume  it  will  be  found  that  in  every  year  the 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


175 


receipts  and  the  expenditures  of  the  parish  are  known  to  a  very 
considerable  number  of  persons  most  interested. 

Q.  Have  you  any  knowledge  whatever  of  the  management  of 
the  affairs  of  Trinity  Church  1  A.  I  have  only  a  general  knowl- 
edge of  those  of  any  parish. 

Q.  What  greater  reason  was  there  for  abandoning  the  church 
at  the  Five  Points,  and  Christ  Church,  than  for  abandoning 
Trinity  Church  at  the  head  of  Wall-street?  A.  The  church  at 
the  Five  Points  and  Christ  Church,  were  independent  parishes, 
and  moved,  I  presume,  of  their  own  option  to  a  more  eligible 
portion  of  the  city.  Trinity  Church  might  have  removed  to  a 
more  eligible  portion  of  the  city,  so  far  as  the  character  of  her 
worshipers,  for  wealth,  were  concerned  ;  but  preferred  to  retain 
a  very  old  site,  the  oldest  I  believe  in  the  city,  and  to  continue 
to  exercise  her  ministry  in  that  very  destitute  portion  of  the 
city. 

Q.  Were  there  not  as  strong  reasons  for  retaining  Zion  church  at 
the  Five  Points,  as  there  were  for  retaining  Trinity  upon  her 
site  7  A.  I  was  not  as  well  acquainted  with  the  position  of  Zion 
church  in  those  days  as  with  that  of  Trinity,  and  it  may  have 
been  very  desirable  that  a  church  should  have  been  retained  in 
the  place  of  Zion  church. 

Q.  Is  or  is  not  the  effect  of  making  loans  to  churches  and  tak- 
ing back  bonds  and  mortgages  for  the  money  so  loaned,  to  cause 
the  churches  thus  receiving  loans  to  vote  in  convention  for  the 
particular  views  Trinity  Church  espouses  ?  A.  I  can  only  judge 
from  my  own  experience  and  observation,  and  sojudging  should 
think  not.  I  can  recall  many  cases  where  such  mortgages 
exist,  and  where  the  rector  and  the  lay  delegates  quite  habitual- 
ly vote  on  a  side  different  from  Trinity  Church.  My  attention 
has  never  been  called  to  any  case  where  the  independence  of  the 
rector  and  laity  seemed  to  have  been  impaired  in  consequence 
of  the  existence  of  any  mortgage. 

Q.  Do  or  do  you  not  know  that  in  the  grants  of  Trinity 
Church,  she  aids  ten  churches  classed  as  "  high  church,"  where 
she  aids  one  of  opposite  views  ?   A.  I  do  not  know  that  she 


176 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


does;  it  may  seem  strange,  but  I  never  have  looked  at  the  grants 
of  Trinity  Church  to  see  how  that  was. 

Q.  Can  you  state  the  comparative  number  of  the  congregations 
known  as  ''high  church"  in  this  diocese,  and  those  known  of  the 
opposite  character?  A.  I  can  suppose  that  there  are  many  con- 
gregations that  would  not  care  to  have  either  terra  applied;  but 
if  the  line  were  to  be  strictly  drawn,  inclurling  on  one  side  or 
the  other  every  congregation,  I  suppose  there  would  be  five  or 
six  of  the  "high  church"  to  one  of  the  "low." 

Q.  What  is  the  proportion  in  the  city  of  New-York?  A.  lam 
not  so  well  informed  in  regard  to  the  city  of  New-York  as  in 
regard  to  the  whole  diocese,  because  a  general  vote  is  sometimes 
taken  in  convention  showing  the  comparative  numbers  in  the 
whole  diocese,  but  nothing  of  the  same  kind  occurs  to  show  the 
proportion  in  the  city,  yet  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  proportion 
of  what  would  be  called  "low  church"  in  the  city,  is  somewhat 
larger  than  in  the  diocese  generally. 

Q.  Was  there  not  a  time  in  the  city  of  New-York,  when  all 
Episcopalians  in  that  city  had  a  right  to  vote  at  the  elections  of 
Trinity  Church?  A.  I  am  not  aware  that  there  was  any  such 
time,  unless  it  was  at  a  very  early  period  when  all  Episcopalians 
were  members  of  that  parish. 

Q.  What  greater  difficulty  would  there  be  in  managing  a 
larger  property |of  the  church  through  the  convention,  than  there 
is  in  managing  the  Episcopal  Fund  ?  A.  So  that  they  were 
rightfully  possessed  of  a  larger  property,  I.  think  they  might  be 
able  to  manage  it. 

By  Counsel  tor  Trinity  Church. 

Q.  Say,  whether  there  is  not,  necessarily,  a  most  intimate  con- 
nection between  the  spiritual  and  financial  affairs  of  a  parish, 
growing  out  of  the  fact,  that  the  funds  are  to  be  applied  with 
reference  to  spiritual  interests  ?    A.  Undoubtedly. 

Q.  Had  Trinity  any  control  over  the  removal  of  Zion  Church 
from  the  Five  Points,  or  Christ  Church  from  Anthony  street  1 
I  am  not  aware  that  she  had. 


t)N  AVFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


177 


<i.  If  it  be  true,  that  in  eight,  out  of  the  past  ten  years,  an 
average  of  hardly  one  in  ten  of  the  corporators  of  Trinity  Church 
appeared  at  the  vestry  elections  of  Trinity  Church,  is  this  a 
state  of  things  peculiar  to  that  parish,  and  does  it  indicate 

torpor  ?"  A.  It  is  quite  the  ordinary  "condition  of  things 
throughout  the  diocese,  I  should  think.  It  is  generally  rather 
a  favorable  indication,  than  otherwise,  implying  satisfaction 
with  the  administration  of  the  affairs.  As  a  general  thing 
throughout  the  diocese,  and  throughout  the  country,  probably, 
you  will  find  few  voters  present,  unless  there  is  some  trouble. 

Q.  How  was  it,  during  'the  twenty-two  years  that  you  were 
Rector  of  St.  Peter's  Church  in  Albany?  A.  I  siippose,  out  of 
one  hundred  and  twenty-five  or  one  hundred  and  thirty  corpora- 
tois,  there  were,  on  an  average,  from  six  to  ten  persons  present 
at  annual  vestry  meetings. 

Q.  Do  you  thinic  that  Trinity  Church  has  done  its  utmost  to 
make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation,  available 
for  the  founding,  support,  or  promotion  of  religious,  charitable, 
or  educational  institutions,  or  purposes'?  A.  It  is  a  yery  diffi- 
cult question  for  any  one  to  answer,  I  have  had  some  plans  that  I 
have  wished ,  and  intended  to  propose  to  the  rector  and  vestry  of 
Trinity  Church,  but  I  was  met,  in  turning  the  matter  in  my  own 
mind,  on  the  threshold,  with  the  fact,  that  Trinity  Church  has 
already  a  debt  of,  between  $600,000  and  $700,000;  she  is  con- 
stantly beset  by  various  applications,  for  important  objects,  and 
has  been  making  grants,  whenever  she  felt  herself  warranted 
in  doing  so;  and  I  have  felt  that  there  might  be  difficulties 
about  raising  large  sums  of  money  at  present,  and  having  en- 
tire confidence  in  the  probity  and  good  will  of  the  vestry,  I  felt 
unwilling  to  press  them  to  exertions  beyond  what  their  own 
judgment  warranted.  Whether  they  have  ever  made  any  mis- 
takes, or  omitted  to  make  appropriations,  when  they  ought  to 
have  done  so,  I  am  sure  I  am  not  able  to  say,  nor  do  I  consider 
it  a  very  material  question  in  the  present  aspect  of  affairs. 

Q.  Is  it  the  practice  of  the  vestry  to  consult  with  the  bishop 
of  the  church  with  reference  to  making  or  refusing  grants'? 


12 


178 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


A.  It  is  not;  I  may  be  spoken  to  in  some  instances,  but  I  par- 
ticularly wish  to  avoid  it.  The  applications  will  always  be  very 
much  more  numerous  than  can  possibly  be  granted  under  any 
conceivable  state  of  things.  If  I  was  known  to  interfere  in  the 
matter  of  appropriations,  my  duties  and  responsibilities  would 
be  very  largely  increased  indeed,  without  any  corresponding 
benefit  to  the  church.  I  have  felt  obliged  to  have  it  understood 
in  the  diocese  that  I  could  not  act  in  behalf  of  applicants. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  whether  Trinity  Church  has,  within  the 
past  twenty  years,  given  any  lots  of  land  for  any  purpose  what- 
ever, except  the  burial  plot  spoken  oY  in  the  report  ?  A.  I  don't 
know  whether  she  has  or  not. 

Recess  to  to-morrow  at  4  p.  m. 


Thursday  Afternoon,  February  17. 
Present,  Senate  Committee,  Messrs  Spencer,  Noxon,  and  Ram- 
sey; Judge  Parker,  and  0.  Meads,  Esq.,  counsel  for  Trinity  Cor- 
poration, 

Rev.  Jesse  Pound,  recalled,  examined  by  counsel  for  Trinity 
Church. 

Q.  Were  you  the  pastor  of  St.  Matthew's  church  at  the  time 
it  was  closed  ?    A.  I  was. 

Q.  What  other  Episcopal  churches  were  near  rSt.  Matthew's? 
A.  There  were  several;  St.  Lukes's,  St.  Clement's,  and  there  was 
a  recently  organized  congregation  called  the  St.  John  the  Evan- 
gelist, first  called  St.  Jude's;  these  were  all  that  were  in  the  im- 
mediate neighborhood. 

Q.  Which  of  these  was  the  last  organized  1  A.  St.  John  the 
Evangelist,  or  St.  Jude's,  as  formerly  named. 

Q  Was  there,  in  your  opinion,  any  necessity  for  the  organi- 
tion  of  St.  Jude's?  A.  I  think  not,  the  wants  of  the  neighbor- 
hood were  abundantly  met  by  existing  corporations 

Q.  How  long  before  St.  Matthew's  was  closed  was  St.  Jude's 
organized?  A.  I  think  about  eight  years;  but  would  not  be 
certain  as  to  the  precise  time. 


OF  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


179 


Q.  How  near  was  St.  Jude's  church  to  St.  Clement's?  A.  It 
was  very  near  the  length  of  one  block. 

Q.  How  far  was  St.  Luke's  from  St.  Matthew's?  A.  The  dis- 
tance of  three  blocks.    St,  Luke's  was  nearest  to  St.  Mattliew's. 

Q.  How  far  is  St.  Jude's  or  St.  John's  the  Evangelist,  from 
St.  Matthew's.    A.  It  is  within  three  blocks. 

The  following  letter  was  here  introduced  and  read: 


To  the  HecloTy  Church-wardens,  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church: 

Gentlemen — The  undersigned,  in  behalf  of  St.  Matthew's 
church,  in  this  city,  beg  leave  to  address  you  for  the  purpose  of 
discharging  a  duty  which  is  as  pleasing  to  our  own  feelings  as 
we  hope  it  will  prove  acceptable  to  your's,  and  which  has  only 
been  thus  long  delayed  by  the  fact  of  our  not  having  had  a 
regular  and  full  vestry  meeting  during  the  past  summer.  The 
duty  alluded  to,  is  that  of  presenting  to  your  honorable  body 
our  very  sincere  and  most  grateful  acknowledgments  for  the  an- 
nual appropriation  you  have  been  pleased  to  make  to  the  parish 
we  represent.  We  beg  leave,  most  sincerely  to  assure  you  of 
our  grateful  appreciation  of  this  act  of  kindness  and  considera- 
tion, and  that  we  regard  the  value  of  the  stipend,  and  our  obli- 
gation to  its  donors,  vastly  increased  by  the  fact  that  it  was  un- 
solicited. We  consider  it  to  be  the  province  of  St.  Matthew's  to 
test  the  practicability  and  efficiency  of  the  free  church  principle, 
and  since  God's  providence  has  placed  us  in  a  condition  to  test 
it  fairly  and  fully,  we  are  determined  so  to  do,  that  if  it  fail  here, 
it  may  be  regarded  as  a  total  failure.  Accept,  therefore,  our 
most  sincere  thanks  for  giving  us  something  on  which  our  rector 
may  rely  while  this  experiment  is  being  made;  and  praying  God 
to  bless  your  exertions  in  discharging  the  obligations  of  your  " 
high  trust  and  mighty  responsibilities,  we  are,  gentlemen,  very 
sincerely, 


New-York,  October  20th,  1847. 


(Signed) 
John  McRae, 
Henry  Fisher, 


Yo  U'  grateful  friends  and  brethren, 

JESSE  POUND,  Rector. 


Wardens. 


■J 


180 


REPORT  OF  SELFCT  COMMITTEE 


Q.  Is  that  your  signature  affixed  to  the  letter  1   A.  Tes,  sfr- 

Q.  Are  the  others  the  signatnres  of  the  wardens  1   A.  Yes,  sin 

The  witness  desired  to  explain,  as  follows :  St  Matthew's 
church  was  first  given  to  the  City  Mission  Society.  To  that 
society,  Trinity  had  been  accustomed  to  give  an  annual  stipend, 
to  each  of  their  stations.  Tliat  society  became  unable  to  sustaiit 
itself.  The  City  Mission  Society  paid  the  stipend  to  each  church, 
of  which  Trinity  paid  $600,  which  was  one-half.  There  were 
three  churches.  The  action  of  Trinity  church  vestry,  to  which- 
that  letter  refers,  was  subsequent  to  their  being  given  up  by  the 
City  Mission  Society,  and  consequent  upon  that  act.  The  |400^ 
was,  therefore,  in  lieu  of  the  $600  which  had  formerly  been  paid 
to  the  City  Mission  Society. 

Again,  in  relation  to  the  reasons  which  led  to  the  founding  of 
St.  Matthew's  Church.  It  was  first  purchased  by  an  individual 
wholly,  and  given  to  the  City  Mission  Society,  in  order  that  it 
might  supply  free  church  accommodations  to  that  neighborhoods 
The  location  of  the  church  was  not  esteemed  a  desirable  one, 
chiefly  on  account  of  its  nearness  to  St.  Luke's;  but  the  property 
was  an  eligible  one  and  such  as  could  be  paid  for  with  the  means 
in  hand.  Before  any  step  was  talcen  towards  the  purchase,  or 
any  third  individual  knew  of  such  intention,  Bishop  Eastburn 
and  myself  waited  upon  Mr.  Forbes,  then  the  rector  of  St.  Luke's. 
Dr.  Eastburn  stated  to  him  his  purpose,  and  asked  him  if  he  had 
any  objection  arising  from  its  nearness  to  St.  Luke's.  He  replied 
he  had  not  the  least,  and  bid  us  God  speed.  He  further  observed 
that  he  could  have  no  objection;  inasmuch  as  there  had  not  been 
a  pew  or  sitting  to  let  in  St.  Luke's  for  years,  and  there  were 
constant  applications  for  them  which  they  could  not  supply. 
He  further  observed  that  were  the  church  on  the  lot  adjoining 
St.  Luke's  he  would  have  no  objection. 

Q.  How  long  before  the  closing  of  St.  Matthew's  did  you 
adopt  the  practice  of  renting  the  pews  1  A.  About  three  years. 
The  practice  was  continued  until  the  close  of  the  church,  but 
the  rent  was  riDminal,  ranging  from  $5  to  $20.  The  only  object 
was  to  produce  income  enough  to  pay  expenses. 


X>T  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


181 


Q.  Who  was  the  first  rector  of  St.  Jude.  A.  Rev.  R.  C. 
Shimeal. 

B.  Did  he  afterwards  become  a  Presbyterian  minister?  A 
He  did,  soon  after  he  left  the  parish. 

By  the  committee. 

Q.  It  appears  by  the  report  of  Trinity  Chiirch,  that  she  gave 
annually  to  St.  Luke's  $2,1  GO.  What  portion  of  that  sum  given 
to  St.  Matthew's  would  have  sustained  that  church  1  A.  One- 
half  of  it. 

Q.  By  giving  one-half  that  sum  that  property  would  then, 
have  been  preserved  to  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  city  1  A, 
It  would, 

Q.  Did  Trinity  Church  receive  back  from  the  City  Mission 
Society  any  considerable  portion  of  her  advances  to  that  institu- 
tion ?  A.  I  have  reason  to  believe  they  did  from  the  sale  of  the 
property,  but  not  from  the  society. 

Q.  How  was  the  property  sold  1  A,  It  was  sold  under  fore- 
closure of  mortgages. 

Q.  Did  Trinity  Church  hold  mortgages  upon  those  two 
churches'?   A.  I  presume  not. 

Q.  How  then  did  she  collect  the  money.  A.  The  church  of 
the  Holy  Evangelists  was  bought  and  paid  for  wholly  by  con- 
tributions of  private  churchmen.  The  church  of  the  Epiphany 
partly  so ;  the  other  part,  as  I  have  been  intormed  by  the  trea- 
surer of  that  society,  was  obtained  by  mortgage  of  the  two 
churches  to  the  Howard  insurance  company  for  $13,000.  When 
the  security  ceased  there  was  no  one  to  pay  the  interest,  and  the 
mortgages  were  foreclosed.  Trinity,  as  I  have  been  informed, 
became  the  purchaser.  The  Holy  Evangelist's  was  sold,  as  I 
have  been  informed,  for  $15,000. 

Q.  What  description  of  people  made  up  the  congregation  of 
St.  Matthew's  1  A.  They  were  persons  in  humble  circumstances; 
large  proportion  of  them  were  poor.  There  was  not  a  wealthy 
individual  in  the  congregation. 


182 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Q.  Wliat  description  of  persons  made  up  tlie  congregation  at 
St.  Luke's"?  A.  They  weree  of  a  more  respectable  class,  and 
much  more  means. 

By  Judge  Parker. 

Q.  You  have  stated  that  half  the  allowance  made  to  St. 
Luke's  would  have  sustained  St.  Matthew's  church.  Do  you 
mean  that  it  would  pay  the  indebtedness  of  the  church  and  the 
mortgage  on  the  parsonage?    A.  .\o,  it  could  not  do  that. 

Q.  How  much  would  it  have  taken  to  do  that  and  to  put  the 
church  edifice  in  repair  1  A.  About  $6,000.  That  would  have 
left  the  whole  property  clear.  An  annual  stipend  of  $1,000 
from  Trinity,  after  paying  this  indebtedness  and  repairs,  would 
have  paid  its  rector  $1,000  per  year  and  all  ordinary  expenses 
of  the  parish.  The  whole  annual  expenses  of  the  parish  never 
exceeded  $1,700.  I  am  now  rector  of  the  St.  Luke's  church,  at 
Rossville,  Staten  Island,  and  received  an  annual  salary  of  $400 
and  a  parsonage. 

By  the  committee. 

Q.  "What  was  St.  Matthew's  worth  at  the  time  it  was  mortgaged! 
A.  It  was  considered  a  chaep  purchase  at  $1,500.  It  has  ^been 
re-conveyed  to  Bishop  Eastburn,  the  donor,  who  originally  gave 
it  to  the  City  Mission  Society. 

Rev.  William  Berrian,  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  called  and 
sworn : 

Examination  by  counsel  for  Trinity  Church. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  a  minister  of  Trinity  Church 
A.  I  am  in  the  46th  year  of  my  ministry  in  that  parish;  I  was 
nearly  seventeen  years  assistant  minister,  two  years  assistant 
rector,  and  have  now  been  upwards  of  twenty-six  years  rector 
of  the  same. 

Q.  State  whether,  from  this  long  connection  with  the  parish 
and  your  official  station,  you  have  become  vere  familiar  with  ils 
concerns  1  A.  Legal  questions  being  excepted,  there  are  proba- 
bly few  more  so. 


ON  AFFAIKS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


183 


Q.  What  particular  facilities  have  you  for  this  kind  of  infor- 
mation from  your  position  as  rector  1  A.  I  preside  at  every 
meeting  of  the  vestry,  and  as  presiding  officer  all  its  business 
passes  me  as  presiding  offi:^er  in  the  first  instance,  and  if  it  be 
referred  either  to  special  committees  or  the  standing  committee, 
is  generally  more  or  less  known  to  me  in  its  progress,  and  always, 
of  course,  (unless  referred  with  power,)  before  the  final  action 
upon  it. 

Q.  Has  your  attention  been  drawn  to  the  affairs  of  this  cor- 
poration in  any  other  way  which  might  make  you  still  more 
familiar  with  them  ?  A.  A  few  years  since,  I  wrote  the  history 
of  Trinity  Church,  the  materials  for  which  were  drawn  from 
the  most  authentic  and  reliable  sources,  and  with  as  much  re- 
gard to  truthfulness  and  accuracy,  as  honesty  of  purpose  and 
labor  and  care  could  possibly  make  it.  I  have,  since  that,  writ- 
ten a  vindication  of  this  corporation,  in  a  pamphlet  entitled 
*' Facts  against  Fancy,"  from  the  unjust  and  unmerited  asper- 
sions which  have  been  cast  upon  it,  and  brought  down  the  list 
of  its  gifts  and  bounties  very  nearly  to  the  present  time.  I  have 
also  recently  prepared  a  report  to  the  vestry  on  the  actual  work- 
ing of  the  system  in  our  parish  under  its  present  arrangements, 
which  could  scarcely  fail,  from  its  beneficent  results,  to  satisfy 
every  candid  and  unprejudiced  mind. 

Q.  Being  so  familiar  with  the  affairs  of  Trinity  Church,  why 
did  you  not  testify  before  this  committee  at  its  sessions  in  the 
city  of  New- York  ?  and  why  did  not  all  the  assistant  ministers 
testify  ?  A.  I  was  not  summoned  by  the  committee,  and  only 
three  out  of  eight  of  the  assistant  ministers  were  ,  on  what 
grounds  the  discrimination  was  made  it  is  impossible  for  me  to 
tell. 

Q.  Is  there  any  foundation  for  the  charge  that  the  standing 
committee  possess  nearly  all  the  reliable  knowledge  of  the  affairs 
of  the  corporation  1    A.  In  no  degree  whatever. 

Q.  Of  whom  does  the  standing  committee  consist  and  when  is 
it  chosen  ?  A.  The  standing  committee  consists  of  the  Comp- 
troller, the  clerk,  and  six  other  members  of  the  body,  who  are 
selected  from  the  whole  number  of  the  vestry,  consisting  of 
twenty-two  members,  on  account  of  their  supposed  preeminent 


184 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


fitness  for  the  proper  consideration  of  the  subjects  referred  to 
them.    The  standing  committee  are  elected  every  year. 

Q.  What  is  the  usual  course  of  proceeding  in  regard  to  the 
matters  referred  to  the  standing  committee  1  A.  It  is  merely 
a  matter  of  reference  to  report  on  them  after  due  consideration. 

Q.  Have  the  vestry  in  the  meantime  no  control  in  the  matter 
and  no  voice  nor  influence  in  the  course  of  its  proceedings  ? 
A.  So  far  from  this,  a  full  and  circumstantial  written  report  is 
made  by  the  standing  committee  at  each  monthly  meeting  of 
the  vestry,  of  all  that  has  been  considered  and  acted  upon  since 
the  last  meeting  of  the  body,  as  well  as  very  often  upon  matters 
undecided  and  postponed. 

Q.  Are  the  recommendations  of  the  standing  committee  con- 
clusive ?  A.  Ey  no  means  ;  they  come  back  to  the  body  un- 
doubtedly with  great  weight,  from  the  care  with  which  they 
are  made  up,  but  not  in  all  cases  with  hearty  consent  and  im- 
plicit submission  ;  and  hence,  very  often  when  not  approved  by 
the  vestry,  they  are  either  sent  back  to  the  committee  for  recon- 
sideration or  at  once  rejected. 

Q.  It  is  stated  that  two  of  the  assistant  ministers  of  the  parish 
have  made  several  efforts  to  obtain  a  list  of  the  corporators,  but 
unsuccessfully,  can  you  throw  any  light  on  this  point  1  A.  In 
regard  to  one  of  the  cases  which  I  suppose  to  be  alluded  to,  if 
right  in  my  conjecture  I  think  that  I  can.  Bishop  Wainwright 
applied  to  the  rector  for  a  loan  of  the  book  containing  the  names 
of  the  corporators,  and  subsequently  modified  his  application  to 
examine  and  take  a  copy  of  it,  if  he  deemed  it  expedient.  The 
rector  replied,  "  with  respect  to  the  right  of  any  corporator  to 
examine  the  book  there  cannot  be  a  doubt,  but  the  taking  a  copy 
of  the  same  is  a  question  I  do  not  feel  competent  to  decide." 
The  matter  was  submitted  to  the  vestry  who  unanimously  adopted 
the  following  resolution ,  "  Resolved,  That  the  Right  Rev.  Pro- 
visional Bishop  of  the  diocese  be  permitted  to  inspect  the  book 
containing  the  names  of  the  corporators,  and  to  make  such  ex- 
tracts and  copies  as  he  should  think  proper."  This  list  was 
afterwards  drawn  out  and  handed  to  the  Bishop  by  the  sexton 
of  St.  Paul's.     The  application  for  the  list  was  made  to  th 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


185 


rector,  because  the  book  was  sent  to  him  for  the  correction  of 
the  list  by  his  annual  statement  of  the  new  communicants  which 
had  been  added  to  the  parish,  and  the  losses  which  it  had  sus- 
tained by  removals  and  deaths. 

Q.  Is  the  list  of  the  corporators  of  Trinity  Church  kept  in  the 
joint  charge  of  the  Comptroller- and  Rector?  A.  There  seems 
to  have  been  some  misapprehension  on  this  subject.  The  list  is 
kept  in  the  vestry  office,  and  is  under  the  sole  custody  of  the 
Comptroller.  My  only  agency  in  regard  to  this  list,  is,  to  make 
an  annual  statement  on  the  meeting  of  the  Vestry,  immediately 
preceding  the  election  of  wardens  and  vestrymen  at  Easter;  of 
the  names  of  the  new  communicants,  which  have  been  added  in 
the  interval,  and  the  decrease  of  the  number  in  the  same  period, 
by  death,  or  removal;  in  order  to  render  the  list  more  accurate 
and  complete.  This  is  done  regularly  every  year,  and  how  one 
vestry-man,  if  accustomed  to  be  in  his  place,  and  giving  any 
proper  attention  to  the  business  before  him,  could  have  been  ig- 
norant of  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  done,  or  another,  liaving 
never  seen  this  list,  a  privilege  which  he  had  a  right  to  demand  , 
but,  which  he  never  appears  to  have  claimed ;  is  to  me  a  matter 
of  surprise. 

Q.  State,  whether  the  book  containing  this  list,  is  usually 
taken  to  the  place,  where  the  election  of  Wardens  and  Vestry- 
men is  held'?  A.  I  know  that  it  is  frequently, if  not  uniformly, 
and  I  believe  that  it  is  open  to  the  inspection  of  any  persons 
present,  who  may  have  the  curiosity  to  examine  it. 

Q.  Can  you  inform  us,  whether  it  was  one  of  the  objects  in 
building  Trinity  Chapel,  to  increase  the  number  of  the  consti- 
tuency of  Trinity  parish  1  A.  I  think  that  I  can.  In  the  year 
1848,  observing  the  rapid  changes  that  were  going  on  in  the 
lower  part  of  the  city,  and,  that  in  a  very  short  period,  we  had 
lost  by  removal,  more  than  half  of  our  parishioners,  I  drew  up 
a  very  careful  and  elaborate  report  of  the  comparative  state  of 
the  parish,  and  submitted  it  to  the  vestry,  which  impressed 
them  at  the  time,  and  subsequently  led  to  the  building  of  the 
chapel.  As  some  of  the  motives  and  reasons  which  I  presented, 
have  a  bearing  on  the  matter  in  question,  I  beg  leave  to  make 


186 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


a  brief  extract  Irom  the  report  itself.  "From  1840  to  1848, 
three  hundrtd  and  thirty-five  families  and  seventy  individuals, 
appear  to  have  left  the  parish.  Of  these  a  great  part  were 
born  and  brought  up  in  it,  and  completely  identified  with  it, 
anxious  for  its  growth,  jealous  of  its  interests,  accustomed  to  its 
arrangements,  attached  to  its  usages,  friendly  to  its  clergy, 
and  to  each  other,  and  linked  to  it  by  such  sacred  and  en- 
dearing associations,  as  nothing  but  the  force  of  circumstances 
could  have  induced  them  to  sever.  Many  of  them,  also,  from 
their  sociul  position,  their  professional  standing,  their  educa- 
tion, their  wealth,  and  their  influence,  as  well  as  fj-om  their 
sound  churchmanship,  their  unaffected  piety  and  moral  worth, 
gave  a  greater  degree  of  lustre  and  dignity,  both  in  the  eyes 
of  the  world  and  the  church,  to  the  ancient  and  venerable 
corporation  with  which  they  were  connected.  But  this  was 
not  all.  There  was  then  a  wider  range  than  there  is  now, 
for  the  choice  of  distinguished,  upright,  and  intelligent  vestry- 
men, who  might  be  qualified  to  administer  the  sacred  and  im- 
portant trust  committed  to  tlieir  charge  with  a  becoming  libe- 
rality, and  yet  with  such  wisdom  and  prudence  as  not  to  impair 
in  a  day  what  might  be  useful  to  the  church  for  ages  to  come." 
The  purpose,  therefore,  was  perfectly  reasonable  and  natural, 
and  such,  it  would  seem,  as  every  pious  and  judicious  mind 
would  sanction  and  approve;  to  regain  and  preserve  tried  and 
attached  triends,  to  keep  up  the  standard  of  our  constituency  to 
the  elevation  which  it  had  always  maintained,  and  to  enlarge  the 
means  of  our  usefulness  to  others.  It  was  not  supposed  that  the 
new  chapel  would  be  entirely  filled  with  those  who  were  already 
corporators  as  pew  owners  in  the  other  churches  of  the  parish, 
nor  has  it  turned  out  so,  but  that  there  would  also  be  an  addi- 
tion to  their  number,  at  least  as  communicants,  among  the  new- 
comers. This  is  a  simple  and  unvarnished  statement  of  the  mo- 
tives and  reasons  by  which  the  vestry  were  actuated  in  the  erec- 
tion of  Trinity  chapel. 

Q.  What  can  you  say  on  the  subject  of  the  establishment  of 
free  churches  in  the  city  of  New-York,  and  the  aid  that  Trinity 
church  has  afforded  them  1    A.  The  plan  of  free  churches  in  our 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


187 


communion  in  this  country,  is  a  very  recent  affair,  and  altogether 
experimental,  and  with  the  exception  of  the  church  of  the  Holy 
Communion,  and  one  or  two  others,  nearly  all  that  has  been  done 
in  their  behalf  in  this  city,  has  been  done  by  Trinity  Church. 

Q.  It  is  stated  that  it  does  not  appear  from  the  report  of 
Trinity  Church  that  it  has  ever  built  and  free  church?  Has  it 
done  anything  equivalent  1  A.  Though  that  may  be  true,  she 
has  nevertheless  done  what  may  be  regarded  as  a  fair  equiva- 
lent. The  grants  of  |14,000,  towards  the  Church  of  the  Nativity, 
seems  to  be  passed  over  slightly,  as  if  it  were  a  trifling  affair.  I 
doubt,  however,  whether  if  it  were  put  up  for  sale  to-morrow,  it 
would  bring  much  more  than  Trinity  has  bestowed  on  it. 

Q.  "What  has  Trinity  done  in  regard  to  St.  George's  chapel,  in 
Beekman-streef?  A.  Through  her  instrumentality  it  was  res- 
cued from  destruction  when  it  was  about  to  be  razed  to  the 
ground.  The  liberality  and  grace  of  this  transaction,  however, 
seemed  to  have  been  lost  sight  of  in  the  report  of  the  committee 
of  the  Senate,  from  an  error,  as  they  suppose,  in  the  report  of 
the  committee  ot  the  vestry. 

Q.  Explain,  if  you  please  your  meaning  on  this  point  1  A.  The 
vestry  of  St.  George's  wished  a  release  of  the  condition  on  which 
the  grant  of  lands  from  Trinity  church  was  made  to  St. 
George's,  in  order  that,  being  entirely  unfettered,  they  might  be 
sold  to  more  advantage.  This  was,  that  there  should  be  always 
a  good  and  sufficient  Protestant  Episcopal  church  kept  up  in 
Montgomery  ward.  An  arrangement  had,  therefore,  been  made 
between  a  committee  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church  and  a  com- 
mittee of  the  vestry  of  St.  George's,  that,  upon  the  release  of  this 
condition,  the  latter  should  deposit  ten  per  cent  of  the  purchase 
money  arising  out  of  the  sale  of  a  portion  of  their  lands,  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  out  this  object,  and  allowing  St.  George's 
chapel  to  be  sold. 

When  the  report  of  this  arrangement  came  in,  I  expressed  my 
great  repugnance  to  it,  as  I  had  worshipped  therein  my  youth; 
and  in  this  feeling,  I  remember,  Mr.  Verplanck,  Chief  Justice 
Jones,  and  Gen.  Dix  entirely  sympathised  with  me.    It  was. 


188         «  REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 

therefore,  sent  back  to  the  committee  for  reconsideration.  The 
church  was  valued,  by  the  vestry  of  St.  George's,  at  $50,000. 
With  their  consent,  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church  agreed  to  take 
an  abatement  of  $25,000  in  the  price  of  the  chapel,  in  lieu  of 
the  obligation  into  which  St.  George's  had  just  entered,  and 
thus  the  venerable  edifice  was  saved  from  destruction,  and  the 
condition  of  the  gift  fulfilled.  The  relief  which  was  thus 
given  to  St.  George's  from  the  harrassing  and  expensive  claims 
of  pew  owners  in  the  chapel  in  Beekraan-street,  and  owners  of 
vaults  in  the  ground  around  it,  in  case  the  church  had  been 
torn  down,  and  the  land  disposed  of  for  more  ordinary  purposes; 
and  the  sum  that  would  have  arisen  out  of  the  reservation  of 
ten  per  cent  of  the  purchase  money  in  the  sale  of  a  considerable 
number  of  their  most  valuable  lots,  were  regarded,  I  believe,  at 
the  time,  on  both  sides,  as  a  fair  equivalent  for  the  deduction  of- 
$25,000  from  the  price  which  was  asked  for  the  chapel.  It  was, 
therefore,  for  a  full  and  valuable  consideration  that  this  deduc- 
tion was  made  ot  $25,000,  and  not  merely  for  "the  worth  of  the 
vote;"  though  this  valuable  consideration  could  not  have  been 
obtained  without  it. 

Q.  Beside  the  payment  of  assessments,  repairs,  alterations  and 
other  expenses,  by  Trinity  Church,  has  anything  else  been  done 
for  St.  George's  in  Beekman-streef?  A.  It  has  relieved  the  con- 
gregation entii-ely  from  the  support  of  their  minister,  and  as- 
sumed the  payment  of  the  whole  salary  itself;  thus  enabling 
it  to  become  a  free  church,  in  a  part  of  the  city  where  one  was 
much  needed. 

Q.  It  is  stated  that  it  appears  from  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee of  the  vestry,  while  nineteen  churches  not  free  have  been 
aided  in  their  support,  in  the  city  of  New- York,  within  the  last 
five  years,  no  mention  is  made  of  building,  enlarging  and  en- 
dowing them.  How  is  this  ?  A.  If  it  be  so  stated,  it  must  have 
been  from  mere  oversight;  as  some  certainly  have  been  aided  in 
that  way. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


189 


Q.  Which  are  they  1  A.  Going  back  but  a  little  way  beyond 
the  prescribed  limits,  the  following  grants  have  been  made  : 

June  12,  1848,  the  Holy  Evangelists,   $6,500  00 

April  12,  1848,  Free  Church  ot  the  Epiphany,   6,500  00 

St  George's  Chapel,  for  assessments,  repairs,  altera- 
tions, &c.,  in  addition  to  the  purchase  money,. . .  5,660  30 
June  28,  1847,  Church  of  the  Nativity,  towards 

building  the  same,   5,000  00 

November  26,  1849,       "          "    4,000  00 

Grace  Church,  Brooklyn,  towards  the  debt  incurred 
in  its  building,  five  annual  instalments  of  $1,000 

each,   5,000  00 

March  21,  1853,  Church  of  the  Annunciation,   25,000  00 

April  9,  1855,  Church  of  the  Redeemer,  at  York- 

ville,   9,000  00 

January  9, 1854,  St.  Mark's,  Williamsburgh,   6,000  00 

And  coming  a  little  this  side  of  the  limit  of  5  years. 

Free  Church  of  the  Holy  Innocents,   5 ,000  00 

Church  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,   15,000  00 

Making  together,   $92,660  30 


Q.  A  question  is  made  as  to  the  endowment  ot  churches  in 
the  city  of  New- York,  by  the  said  cor|X)ration,  within  the  last 
five  years.  What  have  you  to  say  about  such  restriction  as  to 
time  1  A.  Had  the  instructions  of  the  committee  been  a  little 
more  enlarged  as  to  time,  and  a  little  more  comprehensive  in 
their  range,  so  as  to  include  Williamsburgh  and  Brooklyn,  which 
are  almost  virtually  a  part  of  New-York,  it  would  be  seen  from 
the  foregoing  statement  that  there  are  no  less  than  five  free 
churches,  and  five  not  free,  that  have  been  aided  in  the  building, 
enlarging,  or  endowing  of  the  same.  And  that  the  aggregate 
amount  of  these  grants  for  such  purposes  is  $92,660.30. 

Q.  Has  Trinity  done  nothing  more  in  behalf  of  free  churches 
than  you  have  already  stated  ?  A.  She  has  made  annual  allow- 
ances towards  their  support,  to  the  following  churches  :  the 
church  of  the  Nativity,  the  Epiphany,  the  Holy  Evangelists,  the 
Holy  Martyrs,  the  Good  Shepherd,  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  the 


190 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Holy  Innocents,  St.  Simons,  St.  Timothy,  St.  Cornelius,  St.  Bar- 
nabas, and  the  Seamen's  Mission  Churches  of  the  Church  of  the 
Saviour  and  the  Holy  Comforter. 

Q.  What  were  the  amounts  of  these  annual  allowances'? 
A.  They  have  varied  according  to  the  several  necessities  and 
circumstances  of  each  particular  case,  but  range  from  |200  to 
$1,200  per  annum. 

Q.  Could  these  free  churches,  in  your  opinion,  have  been  sus- 
tained without  the  aid  from  Trinity  Church  ?  A.  I  think  that 
most  of  them  would  have  languished,  and  been  much  less  effec- 
tive in  their  operations  than  they  now  ai'e;  and  that  the  rest  of 
them,  in  a  short  time,  would  have  absolutely  perished. 

Q.  How  far  may  Trinity  Church  itself  be  regarded  as  a  free 
church  1  A.  It  is  so  in  a  great  measure  virtually,  though  not  in 
name.  The  parish  church  is  open  to  all  every  morning  and 
evening  each  day  in  the  year,  almost  literally,  without  money 
and  without  price ;  and  both  the  temporal  and  spiritual  wants 
of  the  poor  who  frequent  it,  and  who  live  in  its  neighborhood, 
are  attended  to  with  a  watchfulness  and  kindness  which  have 
been  seldom  equaled  among  us,  and  never  surpassed.  The 
same  thing  may  be  said,  in  a  degree,  both  of  St.  Paul's  and  St. 
John's.  And  even  in  Trinity  chapel,  kind  arrangements  have 
been  made  by  free  sittings,  which  enable  the -rich  and  poor  to 
meet  together  without  any  sense  of  humiliation.  In  the  four 
churches  of  the  parish  there  are  in  effect  about  twelve  or  thir- 
teen hundred  free  sittings. 

Q.  But  has  not  the  number  of  these  free  sittings  been  greatly 
multiplied  from  the  mere  force  of  circumstances,  arising  simply 
out  of  the  non-occupation  of  the  pews  by  their  owners  without 
any  action  of  the  vestry  in  the  matter?  A.  It  was  not  so  in 
regard  to  a  great  number  of  them,  for  it  was  expressly  stipulated 
in  the  renting  of  the  pews  in  Trinity  chapel,  that  those  who 
hired  them  should  be  exempted  from  all  rent  on  their  pews  in 
the  churches  below,  on  the  condition  that  they  should  be  placed 
at  the  disposal  of  the  vestry 

Q.  And  what  disposition  has  the  vestry  made  of  them  ?  A. 
It  has  left  them  entirely  free. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


191 


Q.  What  have  you  to  say  in  regard  to  the  sale  of  Zion 
church,  Christ  church  and  St.  Matthews,  without  any  effort  on 
the  part  of  Trinity  Church  to  prevent  it  and  to  convert  them 
into  free  churches'?  A.  From  the  removal  of  so  many  families 
belonging  to  Zion  church,  and  the  consequent  decrease  of  the 
number  of  Episcopalians  in  that  neighborhood,  the  congregation 
was  greatly  reduced-  All  the  efforts  of  the  active,  zealous  and 
indefatigable  rector  seemed  to  be  fruitless,  and  it  was  constantly 
dwindling  away.  Already,  in  grants,  gifts  and  annual  allow- 
ances, had  Trinity  bestowed  on  Zion  $41,770,  a  sum  larger  than 
that  for  which  it  was  actually  sold.  There  must  necessarily  be 
some  limit  to  her  bounty,  and  especially  in  a  case  like  this 
where  a  fresh  outlay,  even  for  a  free  church,  seemed  to  hold  out 
but  little  promise  of  an  adequate  return.  Christ  church  also 
had  received  from  Trinity  the  still  larger  amount  of  $77,450. 
After  these  lavish  gifts  and  grants,  why  should  not  the  corpora- 
tion of  Christ  church  itself  have  turned  it  into  a  free  church, 
and  not  left  the  reproach  of  neglect  to  be  borne  where  it  did 
not  belong;  with  respect  to  St.  Matthews,  by  the  admission  of  its 
rector,  it  had  fairly  died  out.  In  this  state  of  things  there  seem- 
ed to  be  but  little  occasion  for  the  interposition  of  Trinity 
Church . 

Q.  The  next  enquiry,  according  to  the  resolution  of  the  Hon- 
orable Senate,  whether  any,  and  if  any,  what  appropriations  have 
been  made  by  them  during  the  last  three  years  to  institutions  of 
charity,  benevolence  or  learning,  in  the  city  of  New-York;  to 
this  enquiry  what  answer  have  you  to  make  1  A.  The  simple 
regret  at  the  same  restriction  as  to  place,  the  city  of  New- York, 
and  the  still  narrower  restriction  as  to  time,  that  in  the  enqui- 
ries before  it,  thus  cutting  her  off"  in  the  public  mind,  from  the 
grace  and  credit  of  one  of  the  noblest  acts  of  munificence  which 
Trinity  Church,  in  the  vastness  ol  her  bounty,  has  ever  done. 

Q.  What  is  that  ?  A.  The  grant  of  $50,000  to  Geneva  College, 
and  the  arrangement  by  the  church,  to  pay  the  interest  on  that 
sum,  at  six  per  cent,  until  the  principal  should  be  paid;  which 
has  enabled  it  to  become  a  Free  College,  the  first  instance  of 
the  kind,  I  believe,  throughout  our  land. 


192 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Q.  Is  there  any  thing  else  since  the  ample  endowment  of  Co- 
lumbia College,  the  Society  for  promoting  religion  and  learning, 
Trinity  School  and  Hobart  Free  College,  that  Trinity  has  done, 
for  institutions  of  charity,  benevolence,  and  learning  1  A.  If 
aid  to  the  board  of  missions,  whose  office  is  established  in  the 
city  of  New-York,  or  to  the  Missionary  Committee  of  this  dio- 
cese, whose  deliberations  are  held  in  the  same,  be  classed  under 
this  head;  I  may  then  mention,  that  $5,000  was  granted  to  the 
former,  on  one  occasion,  in  behalf  of  the  African  mission,  and 
$3,000  at  another,  presented  as  an  offering  on  the  altar  to  the 
latter,  for  the  benefit  of  our  diocesan  mission. 

Q.  When,  however,  was  this?  A.  In  1851,  unfortunately 
again,  a  little  too  soon,  to  come  within  the  very  narrow  limits 
prescribed  by  the  Senate,  for  so  comprehensive  an  inquiry.  It 
may  here  be  as  well  to  account  for  the  comparative  smallness 
of  her  benefactions  in  these  three  years.  Trinity  Church  was 
at  that  very  time  engaged  in  building  a  large,  substantial  and 
expensive  chapel,  for  reasons  which,  as  I  have  already  stated, 
seemed  to  make  it  essential  to  her  well  being.  But,  notwith- 
standing this  temporary  check  to  the  free  course  of  lier  boun- 
ties, the  gifts,  grants  and  loans  of  Trinity  Church,  from  the 
close  of  1847,  to  1855,  amounted  to  $331,800.83  exclusive  of  the 
abatement  of  $25,000,  for  reasons  above  stated,  from  the  price 
of  St.  George's. 

Q.  It  is  stated,  that  Trinity  Church  has  never  at  any  time, 
endowed  any  Institution  of  charity,  or  benevolence,  even  for 
her  own  poor.  How  is  this  1  A.  This  appears  to  me,  a  most 
remarkable  statement.  It  has,  liberally  and  amply  endowed 
Trinity  Charity  School,  which  has  been  doing  immeasurable 
good  to  her  own  poor,  and  others,  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion, and  which,  from  a  munificent  bequest,  of  which  she  is  just 
about  to  come  in  possession,  promises  to  become  one  of  the  most 
important  institutions  in  the  land.  The  testimony  on  this  point, 
comes  from  a  quarter  where  it  was  but  little  to  have  been  ex- 
pected, and  is  calculated  to  leave  a  false  impression  on  the 
public  mind.  Neither  Trinity  parish,  nor  Trinity  corporation, 
have  been  so  unmindful  of  their  own  poor,  as  the  report  of  the 
committee  would  seem  to  imply.    The  communion  alms,  which, 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


19& 


in  other  churches,  are  often  appropriated  to  mere  general  pur- 
poses, are  in  this  parish,  applied  exclusively  to  the  relief  of  the 
temporal  and  spiritual  necessities  of  the  poor.  The  private  con- 
tributions of  individuals,  for  the  same  benevolent  purposes,  in 
connection  with  our  parochial  charities,  the  Dorcas  societies,  the 
Industrial  schools,  and  the  Parish  schools,  bear  some  reasonable 
proportion  to  the  ability  of  our  people.  Besides  these,  there 
are  annual  and  occasional  collections  in  the  Parish,  for  St.  Luke's 
Home,  the  Orphan's  Home,  the  House  of  Mercy,  and  for  the  re- 
lief of  human  suifering  and  want,  in  other  forms.  These,  ex- 
clusive of  the  collections  for  the  House  of  Mercy,  which  are  now 
in  progress,  amounting  in  the  last  conventional  year,  to  between  7 
and  |8,000.  In  addition  to  this.  Trinity  Church  corporation, 
makes  an  annual  contribution  of  $2,000  towards^the  communion 
fund,  to  supply  the  deficiencies  in  the  offerings  of  the  people,  on 
account  of  the  altered  condition  of  things  in  the  parish.  It 
appropriates  nearly  $1,600  a  year,  to  lay  agents,  whose  business 
it  is  to  give  needful  assistance  and  counsel  to  the  emigrant,  on 
his  arrival  at  this  port;  to  visit  the  suffering  poor,  and  ascertain 
their  fitness  for  the  bounty  of  the  Church,  and  to  search  out  the 
ignorant,  for  religious  instruction.  It  expends  about  $1 ,000  a  year 
on  the  Parish  school  of  St.  Paul's  chapel,  and  it  likewise  em- 
powers the  Rector,  with  unlimited  discretion,  to  give  orders  for 
the  free  burial  of  the  poor,  ot  our  own  congregations,  as  well  as 
of  others,  a  privilege  which  is  very  frequently  sought,  and  in 
almost  all  eases,  cheerfully  granted  alike  to  all. 

Q.  It  is  said  that  there  is  partizanship  in  the  grants  which 
Trinity  Church  has  made.  Is  there  any  truth  in  this  charge? 
A.  As  a  christian  man  and  a  christian  minister,  I  declare  that  I 
have  never  heard  one  which  appears  to  be  more  unfounded  and 
unjust.  I  have  for  twenty-eight  years  as  assistant  rector  and 
rector,  presided  at  the  meetings  of  the  vestry,  and  I  have  never 
heard  a  syllable  from  any  member  of  that  body  in  any  applica- 
tion before  them  which  would  warrant  the  charge  that  it  would 
be  determined  on  partizan  grounds.  What  influence  the  differ- 
ence of  opinion  maj  exert  on  individual  minds  it  is  impossible 


13 


194 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


to  tell;  but  I  know  very  well  that  the  question  never  comes  up 
nor  is  even  alluded  to  in  the  vestry  itself. 

Q.  How  far  would  this  distinction  of  partiality  in  the  grants 
themselves  be  proved  by  a  reference  to  the  parties  to  whom  they 
were  made?  A.  So  far  as  the  city  of  New-York  is  concerned,  it 
would  be  a  distinction  without  a  difference;  for  with  two  single 
exceptions,  all  the  churches  in  New-York,  amounting  to  the  num- 
ber of  fifty,  have  been  sharers  of  her  bounty.  The  following  list  of 
all  the  church  corporations  in  the  city  of  New-York,  is  taken 
from  the  journals  of  the  convention.  Those  not  njarked  with  a 
star  have  been  aided  by  Trinity  Church.  It  will  be  seen  there 
are  but  two  in  the  list  that  have  not  received  aid  from  Trinity. 
The  one,  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Communion,  that  was  built  by 
the  relict  of  the  late  John  Rogers,  the  other  is  the  Church  of  the 
Incarnation,  that  occupies  the  building  erected  by  Grace  Church 
for  a  free  church. 

New- York  City  and  County. 
Advent,  All  Angels,  All  Saints,  Annunciation,  Ascension, 
Calvary,  Christ,  Crucifixion,  Emmanuel,  Ephiphany,  Holy  Com- 
forter, Our  Saviour,  Good  Shepherd,  Grace,  Holy  Apostles,  *Holy 
Communion,  Holy  Evangelists,  Holy  Innocents,  Holy  Martyrs, 
•Incarnation,  Intercession,  Messiah,  Nativity,  Redeemer,  Re- 
demption, St.  Andrew's,  St.  Ann's,  St.  Barnabas,  St.  Bartholo- 
mew, St.  Clement's,  St.  Cornelius,  St.  Esprit,  St.  George's,  St. 
George  the  Martyr,  St.  James,  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  St.  John 
the  Baptist,  St.  Jude's,  St.  Luke's,  St.  Mark's,  St.  Mary's,  St. 
Matthew's,  St.  Michael's,  St.  Peter's,  St.  Philip's,  St.  Simon's, 
St.  Stephen's,  St.  Thomas,  St.  Timothy's,  Transfiguration. 

Q.  But  may  not  this  aid  have  been  rendered  in  different  de- 
gree! A.  It  would  be  exceedingly  difiicult  to  make  a  compari- 
son from  actual  facts,  but  I  think  that  I  may  venture  to  say  very 
safely,  that  if  the  aggregate  amount  of  the  favors  and  benefits 
received  from  Trinity  by  those  churches  whose  rectors  and  ves- 
tries are  supposed  not  to  sympathise  with  her  in  her  views,  were 
set  against  the  amount  received  by  those  whose  rectors  and  ves- 
tries cordially  do,  that  the  groundless  charge  of  undue  partiality 
would  be  still  more  apparent.  In  this  comparative  estimate, 
however,  must  be  included,  what  the  corporation  has  done 


ON  AFFAIHS  OF  TRINITY  CHT7KCH. 


for  St.  Mark's  church,  Grace  church,  and  St.  George's,  whose 
rectors,  if  we  may  judge  from  their  evidence  in  the  present 
inquiry,  appear  to  have  had  no  great  good  will  towards  Trinity 
Church,  though  with  more  reason  for  kind  feeling  and  grateful 
recollection  than  all  others. 

Q.  Have  you  met  with  any  instances  among  those  called 
"  low  "  churchmen,  who  have  viewed  this  matter  in  a  different 
light  ?  A.  I  have  with  one,  which  is  somewhat  striking.  A 
few  years  since,  a  frank  and  high-minded  clergyman,  who 
prides  himself  on  his  low  churchmanship,  but  who  is  as  liberal 
in  his  feelings  towards  the  views  of  others  as  he  is  honest  in  his 
own,  after  having  read  the  history  of  Trinity  Church,  expressed 
to  me  his  amazement  at  the  extent  of  her  bounties  I  remarked 
to  him,  however,  that  he  would  perceive  they  were  indiscrimi- 
nately distributed,  without  regard  to  difference  of  opinion, 
among  those  who  received  them.  And  what  if  they  had  not 
been,  he  earnestly  leplied,  had  not  Trinity  Church  a  perfect 
right  to  do  what  she  pleased  with  her  own,  I  am  sure  I  would 
have  done  so. 

Q.  Hearsay  evidence  has  been  received  to  show  that  a  certain 
application  for  relief  to  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church  had  been 
repelled  by  the  Comptroller,  on  the  score  that  the  parish,  in 
whose  behalf  it  was  made,  had  not  voted  in  favor  of  Eishop 
Onderdonk  ;  what  do  you  say  to  this  1  A.  If  this  statement  be 
true,  the  subject,  nevertheless,  from  its  peculiar  delicacy,  has 
never  been  touched  on  in  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  and  I  am 
very  sure  that  it  was  never  made  the  ground  of  any  action  in 
this  body,  either  in  one  way  or  the  other. 

Q.  It  is  stated  that  the  active  liberality  and  zeal  of  the  parish- 
ioners of  Trinity  have  been  so  far  weakened,  that  their  four 
congregations  united  do  less  than  some  single  independent  con- 
gregations in  the  same  city,  with  little  or  no  endowment.  Is 
this  comparison  well  founded  and  just  ?  A.  Far  from  it,  I  think. 
It  is  well  known  that  from  the  lower  part  of  the  city,  in  which 
Trinity  and  St.  Paul's  are  situated,  and  even  as  high  up  as  St. 
John's,  nearly  all  the  people  of  wealth  and  condition  have  remo- 
ved and  gone  up  town.  Trinity  church,  though  well  attended 
is  almost  entirely  filled  with  strangers,  and  the  poor,  only  a  very 


196 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


scanty  remnant  of  the  former  congregation  remaining.  The 
same  may  be  said,  in  a  measure,  of  St.  Paul's,  and  in  some 
degree,  of  St.  John's  The  united  ability  of  all  three,  for  the 
exercise  of  charity,  I  do  not  believe,  is  equal  to  that  of  the 
congregation  to  which  reference  is  supposed  to  be  made. 

Q.  What  Episcopal  churches,  besides  Trinity,  St.  Paul's  and 
St.  John's  are  left  in  the  lower  part  of  the  city  1  A.  None  but 
Du  St.  Esprit  and  St.  George's  chapel  in  Beekman  street.  St. 
George's  church  has  gone  up  among  the  rich,  taking  its  ample 
endowment  with  it.  Grace  church,  with  all  its  parish  and  indi- 
vidual wealth,  has  done  the  same;  and  so  likewise  have  Christ 
church  and  the  Ascension;  leaving  their  deserted  poor  in  the 
lower  part  of  the  city,  almost  entirely  to  the  care  oi  Trinity; 
and  then  >he  is  taunted  with  the  scantiness  of  her  collections, 
from  those  who,  for  the  most  part,  have  comparatively  but 
little  to  give. 

Q.  Is  it  true,  as  charged,  that  a  general  torpor  pervades  the 
whole  concern.  A.  If  there  were  even  more  ground  for  the 
charge  than  there  is  in  regard  to  temporal  matters,  it  is  spirit- 
ually full  of  life  and  activity.  Notwithstanding  all  the  re- 
movals and  all  the  changes  which  have  taken  place,  it  has  not 
for  years  been  in  a  more  prosperous  condition.  It  will  appear 
from  the  report  of  the  Rector  made  recently  to  the  Vestry,  that 
in  the  course  of  the  last  conventional  year,  33  adults  and  400 
children  were  baptised  in  the  parish,  that  176  persons  were  con- 
firmed, that  there  are  1,100  communicants,  that  there  were  in 
the  Sunday,  parish  and  industrial  schools,  1,307  scholars  and 
teachers;  and  that,  in  the  same  period,  there  were  about  2,000 
Sunday  and  week-day  services  in  the  parish. 

Q.  But  is  not  this  state  of  things  in  the  parish,  in  some  mea- 
sure, owing  to  the  action  of  the  Senate  1  A.  Neither  the  fear 
nor  favor  of  man  had  anything  to  do  with  it.  The  motives  to 
this  activity  and  zeal,  I  humbly  trust,  came  from  a  higher 
power.  In  the  fall  of  1855,  a  committee  was  appointed  by  the 
vestry  on  the  state  of  the  parish  to  consider  and  report  thereon, 
and  with  a  more  especial  view  to  its  future  arrangements  on 
the  completion  of  tlie  new  chapel,  several  meetings  were  held  on 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


19t 


the  subject,  and  all  the  leading  features  of  the  system  were 
marked  out  and  settled,  according  to  my  recollection  and  belief, 
before  the  action  of  the  Senate. 

Q.  Itis  also  stated,  apparently  as  an  instance  of  the  same  torpor 
that  there  is  so  little  interest  taken  in  the  vestry  elections,  and 
that  in  eight  out  of  the  past  ten  years,  an  average  of  hardly  one 
in  ten  of  the  corporators  cared  to  appear.  Do  you  consider  this 
the  fair  conclusion  ?  A.  On  the  contrary,  I  think  it  the  very 
reverse.  It  seems  to  me  a  decisive  proof  of  the  satisfaction  and 
confidence  of  the  corporators,  in  the  general  administration  of 
the  affairs  of  the  parish.  Did  a  different  sentiment  prevail, 
whatever  their  sluggishness,  it  would  soon  draw  them  out  as  all 
experience  shows. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  Trinity  Church  has  done  its  utmost  to 
make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation  available, 
for  the  founding,  or  support,  or  promotion  of  religious,  charita- 
ble or  educational  institutions  or  purposes  1  A.  Making  due  al- 
lowance for  unavoidable  diversities  of  opinion  and  the  fallibility 
of  human  judgment,  and  looking  beyond  the  mere  present  mo- 
ment to  perpetuity  in  the  future,  I  think  that  it  has.  I  have 
•never  known  any  body  of  men  act  more  thoughtfully,  more  up- 
rightly and  conscientiously,  than  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  in 
the  administration  of  its  affairs,  nor  any  which,  in  its  general 
character,  surpassed  it  in  wisdom  and  intelligence. 


Wednesday  Afternoon,  Feb.  18th. 

Present — Senate  committee,  Messrs.  Spencer,  Noxon  and 
Ramsey.  Counsel  for  Trinity,  Judge  Parker  and  O.  Meads,  Esq. 

Rev.  John  Henry  Hobart  recalled  and  cross-examined  by  coun- 
sel for  Trinity  Church — Q.  So  far  as  your  knowledge  extends, 
what,  during  the  time  of  your  connection  with  the  parish,  have 
been  the  policy,  desire  and  action  of  Trinity  church  in  relation 
to  making  the  property  of  that  corporation  available  for  the 
founding,  support  or  promotion  of  religious,  charitable  or  edu- 
cational institutions  or  purposes  1    A.  I  believe,  so  far  as  I  have 


198 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


kuowletlge,  that  the  vestry  have  acted  in  good  faith,  to  the  best 
of  their  judgment,  in  order  to  make  their  property  available  for 
the  purposes  named  in  the  question. 

Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Potter,  recalled  by  counsel  for  Trinity — 
Q.  Have,  or  have  not  the  grants  of  Trinity  church  made  to  other 
churches,  in  the  form  of  grants  of  money,  secured  by  mortgages 
or  otherwise,  or  in  the  form  of  annual  stipends,  had  the  effect  to 
promote  dependency  ,feebleness  and  deadness  in  the  parishes  thus 
aided,  or  what  has  been  the  effect  of  such  grants  in  each  of  those 
forms  of  grants  upon  the  internal  condition  of  the  parishes  aided  1 
A.  I  do  not  see  why  the  assistance  spoken  of  in  the  question  should 
be  injurious  to  the  parishes  in  the  respect  mentioned  in  the  ques- 
tion; nor  do  I  believe  that  it  has  been;  but  on  the  contrary,  bene- 
ficial. It  has  encouraged  parishes  to  exertion  in  many  instances, 
when  otherwise  they  would  have  been  unable  to  maintain  them- 
selves. The  feeling  often  has  been,  I  think,  that  the  parishes,  after 
receiving  such  aid,  have  laid  themselves  under  special  obligations 
to  exert  themselves.  If  it  was  an  absolute  grant,  with  a  mortgage, 
it  did  not  differ  essentially  from  any  other  gift,  except  that  the 
obligation  spoken  of  was  increased.  If  it  was  an  annual  stipend,  it 
was  like  the  stipend  granted  by  the  missionary  committee  of  the 
diocese,  and  those  annual  stipends  have  been  provided  for  by  the 
collective  wisdom  of  the  church  in  the  diocese,  as  a  part  of  her  or- 
ganised system.  It  must  imply  an  opinion,on  the  part  of  the  whole 
church  in  the  diocese,  that  that  mode  of  rendering  assistance  is 
a  useful  mode,  I  have  known  many  cases  where  the  question  of 
a  church  being  able  to  establish  itself  in  a  given  community,  or 
being  able  to  maintain  itself,  seemed  to  depend  upon  the  assist- 
ance it  received  from  Trinity  church. 

Q.  Will  you  explain  more  fully  your  meaning  in  regard  to 
the  nature  of  your  supervision  over  the  affairs  of  Trinity  Church  1 
A.  It  is  with  the  affairs  of  Trinity  Cliurch,  as  with  those  of 
every  other  parish  in  the  diocese.  The  Rector,  Wardens,  and 
Vestrymen,  are  an  integral  portion  of  the  church  of  which  I 
am  an  overseer,  and  I  cannot  conceive,  that  in  any  part  of  their 
official  conduct,  they  are  exempt  from  a  certain  general  re- 
sponsibility to  me,  nor  is  Ihe  idea  of  such  responsibilty  des- 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


199 


troyed  by  the  fact  that  I  do  not  supervise  their  appropriations, 
that  my  assent  is  not  necessary  to  the  validity  of  their  grants, 
and  that  they  make  no  report  of  their  grants  to  me.  Since  I 
have  been  in  office,  a  majority  of  the  vestrymen  of  a  parish, 
(not  Trinity  church,)  laid  before  me,  charges  against  their 
rector,  of  misconduct,  in  regard  to  the  funds  of  the  parish.  I 
ordered  a  committee  of  inquiry.  Had  that  committee  found  the 
charges  warranted,  in  appearance,  by  the  facts,  the  Rector  would 
have  been  put  upon  his  trial;  but  they  were  found  to  be  ground- 
less. The  transactions  of  the  parish,  out  of  which  this  diffi- 
culty arose,  were  not  of  a  nature  to  be  included  in  the  usual 
reports  to  me,  nevertheless,  the  case  shows  tliat  there  was  a  re- 
sponsibility to  the  head  of  the  diocese,  which  extended  to  all 
those  unreported  transactions.  Again,  during  the  Episcopate  of 
my  immediate  predecessor,  there  was  a  case,  in  which  a  rector 
charged  his  vestry  with  misconduct  in  the  management  of  the 
funds  of  the  parish.  The  Bishop  ordered  a  committee  of  in- 
quiry. I  was  the  chairman  of  the  committee.  Witnesses  came 
before  us,  the  conduct  of  the  Vestry  was  inquired  into,  and  a 
report  made  to  the  Bishop,  that  the  allegations  of  the  rector  were 
unsupported  by  the  facts.  In  this  case,  also,  the  transactions 
in  question  were  not  of  that  class  which  are  ever  included  in  the 
parochial  reports  to  the  Bishop.  Nevertheless,  they  were  so 
far  under  his  general  supervision,  that  there  was  room  for  his 
interposition  if  a  special  difficulty  should  require  it.  Let  me 
further  illustrate;  I  am  to  oversee  the  conduct  of  the  clergy. 
It  is  the  duty  of  a  clergyman  to  visit  his  flock,  but  he  does  not 
report  to  me  the  number,  or  frequency  of  his  visits,  and  no 
doubt  there  might  be  some  degree  of  neglect,  without  my  know- 
ledge, or  without  my  considering  it  a  case  for  special  interfe- 
rence. So,  any  parish  may  commit  many  errors  in  church  build- 
ing and  in  the  management  of  its  funds,  without  my  knowledge, 
and  without  my  thinking  it  a  case  for  interference,  even  if  I 
was  aware  of  it.  But  this  does  not  at  all  destroy  the  idea,  so 
familiar  to  the  mind  of  every  churchman,  the  idea  I  had  in 
my  mind,  in  my  former  testimony,  that  the  rector,  wardens, 
and  vestrymen  of  a  parish,  cannot  act  in  any  official  way,  in 
any  matter  pertaining  to  church  property,  and  tlie  interests  of 


CO 


REPORT  OF    SELECT  COMMITTEE 


the  church,  without  a  certain  general  responsibility  to  the  head 
of  the  diocese  ;  and,  as  in  the  cases  I  have  just  cited,  that  re- 
aponsiblility,  is  not  a  mere  theory,  but  a  practical  reality. 

By  the  Senate  committee  : 

Q.  I  should  understand,  sir,  your  first  answer  to  imply,  that 
you  think  it  an  advantage  to  a  church  to  have  its  property 
under  mortgage,  do  you  so  intend  the  reply  1  A.  As  I  have  be- 
fore stated  in  my  testimony,  I  consider  the  mortgage  a  nullity, 
except  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  sale  of  the  church 
property  and  its  alienation  from  its  sacred  use  ;  and,  therefore,  I 
consider  it  no  disadvantage,  and  if  I  had  a  positive  opinion  to 
give  I  should  incline  to  give  the  opinion  that  it  was  an  advan- 
tage. I  take  it  for  granted  that  that  opinion  cannot  be  construed 
to  be  an  opinion  in  favor  of  an  incumbrance  by  mortgage  in  the 
abstract. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  that  under  such  mortgages  interest  ac- 
cumulates, and  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  holders  to  collect 
them  1    A.  I  am. 

Q.  Do  you  by  your  answer  in  explanation,  mean  to  be  under- 
stood that  you  have  any  charge,  direction  or  control,  in  any 
way  or  manner,  over  the  funds  administered  by  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  Church  ?  A.  I  have  already  stated  in  a  previous  an- 
swer that  I  have  no  immediate  oversight. 

Q.  Have  you  any  remote  oversight  A.  My  assent,  I  have 
already  stated,  is  not  essential  to  the  validity  of  a  grant ;  I  am 
not  generally  cognizant  of  the  internal  or  financial  affairs  of  that 
or  any  other  parish,  but  I  must  think,  as  is  implied  in  my  former 
answer,  that  all  the  ofl&cial  conduct  of  vestries  is,  in  a  general 
ecclesiastical  sense,  which  I  have  partly  explained  in  a  former 
answer,  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  head  of  the  diocese. 

Q.  Do  you  regard  the  funds  controled  by  this  corporation  in 
the  same  light  you  do  the  financial  affairs  of  other  church  cor- 
porations, not  having  large  estates.  A.  In  one  respect  I  do. 
They  are  just  as  much  the  exclusive  property  of  that  corporation 
6S  the  property  of  any.  other  church  is.    The  magnitude  of  th» 


ON  AFFAIKS   OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


201 


property  places  it  in  certain  general  moral  relations  to  the 
diocese  at  large,  which  have  been  very  largely  recognized  by 
the  parish. 

Q.  Do  you  regard  your  control  over  this  corporation  and  all 
others  in  this  diocese  alike.  A.  It  has  never  occurred  to  me 
that  there  was  any  diiference. 

Q.  For  a  misapplication  or  mal-administration  of  her  fund, 
what  discipline  would  you  inflict  1  A.I  have  already  stated 
that  in  the  case  of  every  parish  there  may  be  many  errors,  many 
omissions  of  duties,  which  would  not  call  for  any  interposition. 
What  action  I  might  be  induced  take  under  particularly  extreme 
circumstances,  I  certainly  cannot  foresee. 

Q.  I  do  not  ask  you  what  action  you  might  take.  I  ask  you 
what  power  you  have,  by  virtue  of  your  office  as  bishop  ?  A.  I 
have  the  power  by  canon  of  looking  into  the  affairs  of  the 
parishes  I  visit.  I  have  the  power,  by  virtue  of  my  office,  of 
advice  and  admonition.  If  there  be  gross  misconduct  in  the 
parish,  it  must  be  either  with  or  without  the  connivance  of  the 
rector.  It  is  not  easy  to  be  without.  If  it  amounts  to  crime  or 
immorality,  it  of  course  exposes  the  rector  to  be  dealt  with  as  in 
the  case  I  have  mentioned  in  a  former  answer. 

Q.  Is  not  all  your  power  of  a  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical 
nature  1    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Examination  by  counsel  for  Trinity.  Rev.  William  Berrian 
re-called  : 

Q.  Can  you  tell  what  gifts  Trinity  Church  has  made  for  the 
founding,  or  support  or  promotion  of  religious,  charitable  or  edu- 
cational institutions  or  purposes,  and  what  is  the  amount  of  such 
gifts  made  prior  to  the  25th  of  January,  1814,  and  what  subse- 
quent to  that  date  ?  A.  The  following  grants  of  land  were  made 
by  Trinity  Church,  prior  to  1814  : 

1786,  3  lots  to  the  senior  pastors  of  the  Presbyterian  congrega- 
tions in  this  city. 

1765,  2  lots  to  the  corporation  for  the  ferry  between  this  city 
and  Paulus  Hook. 

1775,  2  lots  to  the  same  for  a  pier  and  slip  on  the  north  side  of 
Vesey  street. 


202 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


1800,  for  a  market  in  Duane-street ;  and  for  another  in  Christo- 
pher-street. 

1810,  2  lots  for  a  free  school  in  Hudson-street. 

1752,  grants  of  land,  between  Murray  and  Barclay-streets  and 

extending  from  Church-street  to  the  river,  to  Columbia 

college. 

1748,  Grants  for  the  site  of  Trinity  Church  school. 
1800,  7  lots  to  the  same. 

1802,  32  lots  to  the  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Eeligion  and 

Learning. 
1795,  28  lots  to  St.  Mark's  church. 
1811,25  lots  to  Grace  church. 

1812,  33  lots  to  St.  George's. 

1795,  5  lots  to  St.  Peter's,  Westchester. 

1807,  3  lots  to  St.  Stephen's. 

1807,  6  lots  to  St.  Michael's  and  St.  James'. 

1813,  4  lots  to  St.  James'. 
1805,  4  lots  to  Christ  church. 

108  lots  from  1795  to  1805  inclusive. 
1809,  3   lots  to  St.  George's,  Flushing  ;  3  to  Grace  church, 
Jamaica;  3  to  St.  James',  Newtown;  2  to  St.  Ann's,  Brook- 
lyn; 3  to  Trinity,  Utica. 
Grants  in  money  and  a  bond  during  the  same 

period,   $238,220  22| 

1,500  00 

$239,720  22| 

The  following  are  the  grants  in  land  by  Trinity  Church,  from 
1814  to  August,  1855  : 

1815,  a  grant  of  land  to  the  Free  School  Society. 
1820,  3  lots  to  St.  Luke's. 
1827,  2  do 

1834,  3  do 

1835,  1  lot  to  the  Ascension. 

1832,  5  lots  to  Trinity  school  at  a  mere  nominal  rent. 

In  money  during  the  same  period,   $998,703  60 

There  may  be  some  discrepancy,  but  if  so  my  statement  un- 
derrates. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


203 


Q.  How  did  you  acquire  the  knowledge  necessary  to  enable 
you  to  make  the  statement  contained  in  your  last  answer? 
A.  From  a  careful  examination  of  the  minutes  of  the  vestry 
from  1697  to  1855.  When  I  was  in  doubt  I  usually  consulted 
the  officers  of  the  corporation,  the  comptroller  and  clerk,  to 
clear  it  up,  if  they  knew  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Is  the  statement  correct  that  in  addition  to  the  require- 
ments of  the  law,  the  church  required  that  all  persons  desiring 
to  vote  should  give  previous  notice  of  such  desire  to  the  rector  1 
A.  I  don't  know  of  any  such  requisition. 

Q,  Were  there  any,  and  if  any,  what  Episcopal  church  corpo- 
rations in  the  city  of  New- York,  prior  to  1814,  besides  the  cor- 
poration of  Trinity  Church  1  A.  There  were  nine,  to  wit :  St. 
Mark's,  Christ's,  Grace,  St.  George's,  Du  St.  Esprit,  St.  Stephen's, 
Zion,  St.  Michael's,  and  St.  James'. 

Q.  Did  the  members  of  either  of  these  corporations,  independ- 
ent of  Trinity  Church,  ever  claim  or  exercise  the  right  of  voting 
as  corporators  of  Trinity  Church,  before  the  act  of  1814?  A.  I 
never  heard  of  the  exercise:  but  I  think  I  have  heard  of  the 
claim.  I  never  heard  of  the  claim  being  made  but  once  prior 
to  1814. 

Q.  Was  it  granted  at  that  time  1  A.  I  do  not  think  it  was.  I 
never  heard  that  it  was. 

Q.  Was  such  a  right  ever  claimed  or  exercised  since  1814? 
A.  I  never  knew  it  to  be  claimed  but  on  one  occasion,  that  was 
during  my  rectorship,  when  J  was  presiding.  It  was  not  exer- 
cised. It  was  accompanied  by  a  threat  that  it  Avould  be  exer- 
cised, but  it  was  never  carried  out.  I  think  it  was  between  ten 
and  fifteen  years  ago.  It  was  by  Mr.  Walter  M.  Rutherford. 
Such  a  right  has  never  been  exercised. 

Q.  Is  the  Kev.  Robert  S.  Howland  generally  deemed  a  "high" 
churchman,  or  a  "low"  churchman  ?  A.  He  has  always  been 
reputed  a  "high"  churchman. 

Q.  Did  the  vestry  in  1813,  to  calm  the  fears  of  the  Legislature 
promise  that  their  funds  should  be  applied  to  the  building  of 


204 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTBE 


churches  from  time  to  time  as  the  increase  of  population  de- 
manded, the  control  of  said  churches  to  be  relinquished  to  in- 
dependent vestries,  &c.,  and  suitable  endowments  to  bs  made  ? 
A.  I  never  heard  that  they  made  such  a  promise,  nor  knew  any 
thing  about  it  until  I  read  it  in  the  report  of  this  committee. 

By  the  Senate  committee  : 

Q.  You  stated  yesterday  that  a  large  sum  had  been  given  to 
the  church  of  the  Nativity,  I  would  enquire  whether  a  mortgage 
was  taken  for  it?  A.  I  presume  that  it  was,  but  perhaps  not 
for  the  whole  amount.  There  were  two  sums  of  $5,000  at  one 
time  and  $4,000  at  another,  I  presume  that  the  mortgages  were 
given  for  those  two  sums. 

Q.  You  stated  yesterday  that  the  vestry  had  a  meeting,  dis- 
cussed the  subject  and  agreed  to  allow  certain  ministers  to  ex- 
amine the  list  of  corporators;  was  that  the  first  permission  of 
that  kind  that  had  been  given  ?  A.  It  was  the  first  request  that 
had  ever  been  made  to  me,  that  I  remember;  my  answer  was 
that  there  was  no  doubt  of  the  right  of  the  corporators  to  examine 
the  list,  but  to  take  a  copy  of  it,  it  was  not  my  province  to  deter- 
mine; I  brought  the  question  before  the  vestry  as  to  the  right  to 
take  a  copy;  the  vestry  resolved  that  the  bishop  might  make 
such  extracts,  or  take  a  copy  of  the  whole  of  it  if  he  desired.  A 
copy  was  taken  by  the  rector  of  St.  Paul's  and  sent  to  the  bishop. 

Q.  Did  not  St.  George's  and  some  other  churches  named  by 
you,  relinquish  all  right  to  the  property  of  Trinity  Church  and 
all  right  to  interfere  in  its  affairs?  A.  I  have  always  under- 
stood that  they  had. 

Q.  Did  those  churches  ofifer  to  vote  after  that  1  A.  Never, 
that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Did  not  Col.  Troup  represent  Trinity  Church  in  1813,  '14, 
at  Albany  ?  A.  He  was  a  member  of  the  committee  of  seven  on 
the  state  of  the  church,  and  with  full  power  to  make  application 
to  the  Legislature;  the  other  members  were  Richard  Harrison, 
David  M.  Clarkson,  Thomas  Barrow,  Robert  Troup,  Jacob  Le 
Roy,  Peter  Augustus  Jay,  and  Thomas  L.  Ogden. 


205 


ON  AFFAIBS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


Q.  Is  there  not  a  great  want  of  Episcopal  churches  in  some 
parts  of  the  city  of  New-York  ?  A.  I  would  say  there  is  a  want; 
I  cannot  say  a  great  want,  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  city,  parti- 
cularly. 

Q.  Did  Trinity  Church  ever  build  a  free  church  1  A.  She 
has  in  efifect;  she  has  not  in  fact.  She  has  given  as  much 
as  would  pay  for  the  church. 

Q.  What  was  the  cost  of  Trinity  Church  1  A.  I  think  it  was 
about  $350,000;  the  chapel  cost  $227,000. 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  Episcopal  church  in  the  city  has  kept 
pace  with  the  increase  of  the  population  of  the  city  ?  A.  I  have 
always  considered  it  has. 

Q.  Was  it  not  considered  important  by  the  clergy  of  the  city 
and  particularly  by  Bishop  Wainright,  to  keep  up  Zion  Church, 
at  the  time  it  was  sold?  A.  I  know  it  was  by  him;  but  I  know 
nothing  of  the  opinions  of  others. 

Q.  Did  Bishop  Onderdonk  ever  exercise  or  attempt  to  exer- 
cise any  power  over  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  as  a  vestry  1 
A.  Not  that  I  remember.    I  think  I  can  say  he  did  not. 

Q.  Are  the  recommendations  of  the  standing  committee  al- 
ways reported  to  the  vestry  1    A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  know  of  the  recommendations  of  the  stand- 
ing committee  being  overruled  by  the  vestry  1  A.  Scores  of 
times. 

Q.  You  speak  of  a  resolution  having  passed  the  vestry,  in 
relation  to  allowing  Bishop  Wainright  to  take  a  copy  of  a  list 
of  corporators.  What  called  for  this  action  on  the  part  of  the 
vestry  1  A.  The  reason  was  the  bishop  wrote  to  me  requesting 
the  list  from  me.  I  replied  that  I  had  no  power  myself  to  lend 
the  book,  though  he  had  the  right  to  examine  it. 

Q.  When  was  it  ?  A.I  think  it  was  in  1853,  shortly  after  he 
became  bishop. 

Q.  Had  he  applied  for  it  previously  without  success  7  A.  I 
understood  that  he  applied  to  a  clerk  in  the  vestry  office,  who 
declined  as  I  did,  because  he  had  not  the  power  to  do  it. 


206 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Q.  Did  he  ask  to  see  it  ?  A.I  do  not  know  ;  I  presume  he 
did.    I  think  he  asked  me  to  see  it. 

Q.  Did  you  show  it  to  him  ?    A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Why  not  ?  A.  I  have  not  the  custody  of  the  book.  It  is 
uot  in  my  office  or  custody. 

Q.  Who  had  it  ?    A.  At  that  particular  time  it  was  with  me. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  show  it  to  him  ?  A.  I  had  it  for  the 
purpose  of  entering  the  names  of  new  communicants,  and  the 
changes  by  death  and  removal. 

Q.  Did  that  prevent  your  showing  it  to  him  ?  A.  I  had  no 
control  in  the  matter.  I  looked  upon  the  book  as  belonging  to 
the  comptroller  and  not  to  me. 

Q.  What  are  your  powers,  if  any,  over  the  books  of  the  corpo- 
ration ?  A.  I  have  the  sole  custody  of  the  parish  register,  con- 
taining the  records  of  baptisms,  marriages  and  burials;  and  those 
are  the  only  books  over  which  I  have  any  control,  though  they 
are  all  open  to  my  examination. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  anything  in  the  act  of  incorporation,  or 
rules  of  the  vestry,  to  prevent  your  showing  the  book  to  any 
person  who  applies  to  see  it  ?    A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Then,  I  again  ask,  why  you  did  not  show  it  to  him  ?  A. 
Because  I  thought  it  was  the'  proper  business  of  the  comptroller 
to  let  him  see  it. 

Q.  Why  any  more  proper  for  the  comptroller  than  the  rector? 
A.  Because  the  book  is  one  that  was  under  his  custody.  I  have 
no  other  answer  to  give. 

Q.  Was  it  placed  there  by  law,  or  by  action  of  the  vestry  1 
A.  By  usage,  and  the  necessity  of  the  case. 

Q.  What  churches  were  enlarged  or  endowed  in  the  city  of 
New-York,  for  the  three  years  prior  to  April  13,  1855?  A.  Two; 
the  church  of  the  Annunciation,  |25,000,  and  church  of  the 
Redeemer,  at  Yorkville,  $9,000. 


OK  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


207 


Q.  At  the  time  St.  Matthew's  made  application  to  Trinity  for 
aid,  was  it  admitted  by  its  rector  that  it  had  fairly  "  died  outl" 
A.  I  understood  it  had,  from  the  testimony. 

Q.  Can  you  state  when  the  application,  in  schedule  G,  was 
made  to  Trinity  ?  A.  I  do  not  remember  exactly  the  date  of  it; 
less  than  two  years  ago. 

Q.  Had  it  "  died  out  "  then  1    A.  I  believe  it  had. 

Q.  Do  they  not  state  in  the  application,  that  unless  you  gave 
them  aid,  they  will  cease  to  exist  in  May  following  ?  A.  It 
appears  to  be  so. 

Q.  Did  you  then  understand,  when  you  received  it,  that  it  was 
already  dead?  A.  I  understood  that  it  was  in  a  low  condition. 
I  knew  it  to  be  so  for  a  long  time  before. 

Q.  Was  her  debt,  as  represented  to  you  in  that  memorial,  more 
than  $4,800 — $3,500  of  which  was  on  the  parsonage  1  A.  It  is 
represented  in  the  application  at  $4,800. 

Q.  Was  the  parsonage  of  that  church  separate  from  the  church  ? 
A.  It  was  on  ground  that  belonged  to  the  church,  and  not 
adjoining  it. 

Q.  Why  do  you  say  the  church  w  :s  in  a  low  condition,  with 
only  a  debt  of  $1,3001  A.  My  impressions  of  its  being  so 
were  made  from  conversations  with  Mr.  Pound,  the  rector,  that 
it  was  in  a  very  languishing  condition. 

Q.  Have  you  stated  the  true  and  only  reason  for  not  giving 
her  aid  1  A.  I  don't  know  of  a^iy  other,  I  am  not  aware  of 
any  other. 

Q.  Was  not  one  reason  for  refusing  the  aid  that  the  request 
was  disrespectful  in  its  language?    A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  What  was  the  church  edifice  and  lot  worth,  in  your  judg- 
ment?   A.  I  suppose  $15,000,  perhaps  a  little  more. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  rescue  her  from  her  embarrassment? 
A.  Because  it  was  not  thought  worth  the  expenditure.  It  was 
surrounded  with  other  churches. 


208 


REPORT  OP  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Q.  Do  you  regard  Trinity  Charity  school  as  an  institution  of 
charity  or  benevolence,  within  the  meaning  of  the  resolution 
propounded  by  the  Senate? — (Resolution  was  read.)  A.  I  do, 
in  an  eminent  degree;  I  will  state  the  reason  why.  First,  the 
education  of  our  own  ignorant  poor  children;  in  the  next  place, 
for  a  long  course  of  years  they  were  aided  in  their  clothing  as 
well  as  education,  and  there  are  now  50  to  70  beneficiaries  who, 
in  addition  to  their  instruction,  receive  stipends  from  $20  to  $50 
per  year,  to  help  them  in  their  clothing,  &c.;  it  is  a  day  school. 

Q.  What  are  the  Dorcas  societies  1  A.  Societies  for  making 
garments  for  the  poor.  I  regard  these  as  benevolent  societies; 
these  societies  are  not  aided  by  the  funds  of  Trinity  corporation. 
Industrials  schools  are  those  in  which  the  poor,  especially  girls, 
are  taught  by  the  ladies,  sewing,  and  where  the  garments  are 
given  away  to  the  poor.  They  are  not  endowed  by  Trinity;  one 
of  the  parish  schools  is  endowed  by  Trinity,  the  others  are  sup- 
ported by  private  contributions  of  the  parishioners. 

Q.  Which  do  you  allude  to,  as  being  spiritually  full  of  life 
and  activity,  Trinity  parish,  or  the  Rector,  Wardens  and  Vestry- 
men, in  the  administration  of  her  fund?  A.  I  mean  that  there 
is  great  activity  and  zeal  on  the  part  of  the  clergy  of  the  parish, 
and  of  the  congregations  who  unite  in  these  efforts,  and  that  the 
rector,  the  wardens,  and  vestrymen,  heartily  sympathize  with 
them,  and  aid  them  in  the  prosecution  of  this  work. 

-  Q.  How  do  you  know  the  nine  Episcopal  churches  which  ex- 
isted prior  to  1814,  did  not  vote  for  vestrymen  in  Trinity  parish? 
A.  I  was  very  intimate  with  Bishop  Hobart,  from  1805.  He 
was  very  communicative  to  me,  though  a  young  man,  and  I  have 
no  recollection  of  ever  having  heard  him  say,  that  there  was  any 
exercise  of  such  privilege. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  him  say,  they  did  not?  A.  No;  I  have 
been  in  the  parish  since  the  latter  part  of  1811,  and  certainly 
should  have  known  of  it,  had  it  ever  been  exercised. 

Q.  What  was  your  position  from  1811  to  1814,  iathe  Church? 
A.  An  assistant  minister  of  Trinity  Church. 


ON  AFFAlaS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


209 


Q.  Do  tlie  records  of  the  church  show  who  voted  in  1813  1 
A.  The  clerk  always  takes  down  the  names  of  the  voters  at  the 
elections,  with  the  several  churches  of  the  parish  to  which  the 
voters  belong. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  examined  the  record  with  the  view  to  ^nd 
out  whether  the  nine  churches  did  then  actually  vote  ?  A.  I 
have  not 

Q.  Are  the  lists  of  persons  voting  at  last  election,  preserved 
in  Trinity  Church  ?  A.  I  preserve  my  own  very  carefully  ;  I 
do  not  know  whether  the  clerk  does. 

Q.  If  any  such  lists  are  to  be  found,  would  they  not  show 
whether  any  of  the  persons  belonging  to  the  nine  churches, 
voted  1    A.  If  in  existence,  I  suppose  they  would. 

Q.  What  are  the  salaries  of  each  and  all  the  officers  con- 
nected with  Trinity  Church  1  A.  The  rector  receives  a  salary  of 
$3,500  per  annum,  and  a  house  with  a  stable;  the  five  assistant 
ministers  get  $3,000  per  annum,  and  an  allowance  of  |1,100  for 
house  rent;  three  other  assistant  ministers  receive  $1,500  per 
annum,  and  no  house;  the  comptroller  receives  $3,500;  the 
clerk  of  the  vestry  $1,000  per  annum;  the  collector  $1,200  per 
annum,  clerk  in  the  office  $1,200. 

Q.  Is  an  allowance  of  $1,100  to  all  assistant  ministers,  for 
rent,  sufficient  ?    A.  With  moderate  views,  it  is. 

Q.  Is  the  answer  given  on  page  seventeen  of  the  report  of 
Trinity  Church  the  correct  one  1    A.  I  presume  it  is  correct 
It  reads : 

Grants  and  Burial  Places  in  Trinity  Cemetery. 
To  the  Orphan  Asylum,  a  plot  containing  621  square  feet. 
To  the  society  for  the  relief  of  aged  and  indigent  females,  a  plot 
containing  300  square  feet.  To  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Mutual 
Benefit  Society,  a  plot  containing  600  square  feet.  To  Christ 
Church,  a  plot  to  be  selected.  To  the  Orphan's  Home,  a  plot  to 
be  selected. 

.  By  counsel  for  Trinity — Q.  How  do  these  salaries,  paid  to 
the  clergy  of  Trinity  parish,  compare  with  salaries  paid  to  othe* 

14 


210 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


clergy  in  the  city  of  New-York  1  A.  They  are  considerably 
less;  Dr.  Tyng's  salary  amounts,  I  am  told,  to  about  $6,000;  Dr. 
Hawk's,  about  $5,000  or  $6,000;  the  rector  of  St.  Thomas  re- 
ceives $5,200. 

By  the  Senate  committee — Q.  Do  you  understand  the  act  of 
1814  to  restrict  the  number  of  persons  qualified  to  vote  for 
chivrch  wardens  or  vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  who  had  the 
right  to  vote  before  that  time  I  A.  I  do  not  suppose  that  it  was 
intended  to  restrict  any  who  had  a  right;  but  let  me  add,  that  I 
do  not  think  any  bad  the  right  before,  who  did.  not  belong  to 
the  parish  of  Trinity  Church, 

Examination  by  counsel  for  Trinity. — Rev.  Francis  Vinion 
called  and  sworn — Q.  What  means  have  yon  of  being  acquainted 
with  the  affairs  of  Trinity  Church?  A.  I  am  an  assistant  min- 
ister there,  and  have  been  so  since  June  1855. 

Q.  What  number  of  ministers  are  there  in  Trinity  parish, 
and  how  are  they  employed,  and  what  are  the  character  aad 
number  of  the  congregations  which  attend  the  several  churches 
in  that  parish  1  A  There  are  nine  ministers,  the  rector  and 
eight  assistants.  Two  are  employed  at  the  church,  and  two  in 
each  of  the  chapels;  the  rector  having  general  supervision.  At 
St.  Paul's  chapel,  the  only  one  I  speak  of,  the  congregation  is 
composed  of  three  classes :  first,  the  old  families  retaining  their 
seats;  second,  strangers  from  the  hotels,  clerks  and  sojourners  of 
the  city,  engaged,  for  the  most  part,  in  mercantile  business; 
third,  mechanics,  artisans,  porters,  washer-women,  hucksters, 
and  miscellaneous  poor,  who  obtain  their  living  by  daily  labor. 

Q.  Will  you  be  good  enough  to  explain  the  arrangements  for 
parochial  work  at  St.  Paul's  chapel,  and  as  to  the  work  of  that 
kind  actually  done  by  the  ministers  and  others  there  employ- 
ed? A.  There  is  a  parish  school  employing  two  teachers 
with  voluntary  assistance  from  the  women  of  the  parish,  to  teach 
poor  children  the  principles  of  religion,  as  professed  by  the 
Episcopal  church,  the  elements  of  common  learning;  sewing  to 
the  extent  of  each  making  their  own  clothing,  and  as  laboring  to 
get  their  own  living,  and  also  instructions  in  church  music. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


211 


Tlie  number  of  children  is  80  or  100;  also  a  Sunday  school  in- 
cluding oth«r  children  of  the  parish,  taught  by  between  twenty 
and  thirty  teachers  of  both  sexes;  two  classes  for  advanced 
scholars,  al«o  a  weekly  Bible  class  for  clerks  and  young  men. 
The  public  services  in  the  chapel  are  every  Sunday  morning 
and  afternoon,  five  months  in  the  year,  and  a  night  service  ad- 
ditional tor  seven  months.  I  officiate  statedly  only  in  morning 
service,  the  other  parts  of  the  day  being  employed  in  other  parts 
of  the  parish,  at  the  church  or  chapel,  and,  therefore,  can  speak 
only  of  the  congregation  in  the  morning.  Then  it  is  large,  as  it 
is  at  all  the  chapels;  the  communion's  offerings  liberal,  as 
shown  from  the  fact  that  on  Easter  day  they  amounted  to  the 
sum  of  $270,  and  on  Christmas  day  to  $180,  or  thereabouts. 
At  other  times  the  contributions  are  generous-  There  is  es- 
tablished in  connection  with  St.  Paul's  chapel  a  mission  house, 
open  from  9  A.  M,  to  2  P.  M.,  where  one  of  the  assistant  minis- 
ters is  present  every  day.  There  are  two  laymen  employed  to 
inquire  into  and  examine  every  application  for  aid,  and  report 
the  same  to  the  office.  The  case  is  recorded  in  a  book  kept  for 
that  puipose,  and  a  record  made  of  all  that  was  done  in  each 
case.  The  applicants  are  from  vestrymen  wanting  clergymen, 
clergymen  wanting  parishes,  poor  wanting  help,  the  sick  medi- 
cine, the  emigrant  advice,  kc.  The  office  is  in  communication 
with  most  of  the  extant  institutions  of  charity  in  the  city  of 
New-York.  Cards  are  placed  in  hotels  and  eating  houses,  in- 
viting guests,  in  my  own  name,  to  attend  St.  Paul's  chapel, 
where  free  sittings  are  provided.  We  have  received  letters  from 
persons  we  have  aided,  expressing  their  thanks  to  Trinity  Church. 

Q.  Do  you  think  Trinity  Church  has  done  its  utmost  to  make 
the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation  available  for  the 
founding,  or  support  or  promotion  of  religious,  charitable  cr 
educational  institutions  or  purposes  ?  A.  I  can  speak  only  of 
what  I  have  known  of  Trinity  Church  since  my  connection  with 
it  in  June,  1855,  and  I  say  in  answer  to  the  question,  that  I  have 
observed  an  earnest  disposition  so  to  do  on  the  part  of  the  rector, 
wardens  and  vestrymen  of  that  corporation. 

Adjourned  to  4  P.  M.,  Thursday. 


212 


REPORT  or  SELECT  COMMITTEE, 


Thursday  Aiternoon,  Feb.  19,  I&5T, 
Present,  tlie  Senate  Committee^  Messrs.  Spencer,  Noxon  and 
Eamsey;,  Judge  Parker  and  O.  Meads,  Esq.,  counsel  for  Trinity 
ehurch. 

Rev.  Sullivan  H.  Weston  recalled.  Examined  by  counsel  for 
Trinity  Church. 

Q.  Have  you  any  explanation  to  make  in  regard  to  your 
answer  contained  in  your  former  testimony  ? — [  Referring  to  testi- 
mony taken  before  the  committee  in  New- York.]  A.  I  con- 
sidered that  when  I  said  that  I  could  not  answer  the  question, 
that  that  was  the  end  of  my  testimony  ;  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  observing  that  that  would  do^and  the  rest  of  the 
answer  as  given  was  said  after  I  had  supposed  my  evidence  was 
elosed,^  and  as  I  supposed,  in  the  way  of  conversation,  to  the 
committee  ;  and  when  I  alluded  to  their  property,  I  alluded  to 
the  current  reports  as  to  their  boundless  wealthy  I  was  very 
desirous  to  come  up  and  qualify,  lest  my  former  testimony  might 
fee  misunderstood. 

Q..  Do  you  think  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  has  done  its 
ntmost  to  make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation 
available  for  the  founding,  or  support, or  promotion  of  religious^ 
charitable  or  educational  institutions  or  purposes?  A.  I  can 
answer  that  question  as  I  did  in  the  first  instance.  I  do  not 
know  what  their  capabilities  are,  but  my  opinion  was,  that  less 
should  be  given  abroad  and  more  in  Trinity  parish.  By  abroad 
I  mean  any  where  out  of  our  parish.  I  do  not  doubt  the  sin- 
cerity of  the  vestry  in  trying  to  do  the  best  they  could. 

Q.  Have  you  any  different  opinion  on  this  subject  than  you 
had  when  examined  before  1 .  A.  My  opinion  is  the  same  now  as 
then. 

Q.  Was  not  the  reply  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  at 
the  previous  examination,  that  "that  would  do,"  intended  to  dis- 
miss yon  %   A.  Yes. 

By  the  Senate  Committee  : 

Q.  Is  there  not  great  complaint  among  the  clergy  of  Trinity 
Church  at  the  doings  and  dealings  of  the  vestry  7  A  I  have 
heard  some  complaints. 


X)N  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH, 


213 


Q.  If  you  had  known,  when  you  answered  before  that  the 
property  ot  the  church  was  worth  $6,000,000  or  $7,000,000  would, 
jou  not  have  answered  as  before  1  A.  My  answer  is,  that  I 
should  want  more  done  in  the  lower  part  of  the  dty,  and  less 
elsewhere, 

Q.  Was  it  not,  a  short  time  ago,  in  agitation  among  the  clergy 
of  Trinity  parish,  to  make  a  representation,  in  a  united  manner, 
of  the  wrong  doings  of  the  vestry  ?    A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Were  you  not  spoken  to  by  some  of  the  clergy  about  the 
necessity  of  some  such  interference  to  change  the  dealings  and 
policy  of  Trinity  Church  ?  A,  Some  of  the  clergy  had  agreed 
with  me  that  more  should  be  done  down  town,  and  this  was  pre- 
vious to  their  last  action  in  appointing  additional  force  in  the 
parish. 

Q.  Has  not  Dr.  Higby  and  others,  represented  to  you  that 
the  policy  of  the  vestry  was  ruinous  to  the  church?  A.  I  do 
not  remember  of  others,  I  know  that  Dr.  Higby  has  spoken  of 
the  past  policy  as  not  being  the  best  policy. 

Q.  You  spoke  of  appointing  force  in  the  parish  ;  when  did  it 
take  place  1  A.  About  two  years  ago  ;  don't  recollect  the  time 
nearer. 

By  Counsel  for  Trinity  Church 

Q.  I  want  you  to  explain  what  you  mean  by  saying  you  heard 
some  complaints  among  the  clergy,  about  the  dealings  and 
doings  of  the  vestry  1  A.  One  complaint  was  in  reference  to 
the  wish  for  increased  expenditures  down  town,  in  order  to  meet 
the  wants  of  the  poor. 

Q.  Were  those  complaints  made,  before  the  additional  minis- 
ters of  Trinity  Church  were  appointed  1    A.  They  were. 

Q.  If  you  had  known  that  the  whole  income  of  Trinity 
Church  was  only  about  $100,000  per  annum,  should  you  say  that 
they  could  accomplish  more  good  with  it  than  they  have  done  t 
A.  I  think  they  could  not. 

Q.  You  stated  that  Dr.  Higby  complained  of  the  past  policy 
as  not  being  the  best  policy,  in  what  respect,  did  he  think  it 


214 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


not  the  best?  A.  One,  was  in  reference  to  more  enlarged  pro- 
vision down  town,  and  the  other,  in  reference  to  the  building  of 
Trinity  Chapel  up  town,  to  accommodate  the  parishioners  who 
had  moved  up  town. 

Q.  Have  both  those  defects  been  supplied  1  A.  The  chapel 
has  been  built  and  we  need  more  means  down  town,  in  Trinity 
parish,  if  they  can  afford  it. 

By  the  Committee : 

Q.  Is  there  not  a  great  want  of  Episcopal  churches  in  New- 
York,  for  the  accommodation  of  the  poor,  or  working  classes  1 
A.  Undoubtedly;  heretofore,  we  have  not  had  force  enough  to 
fill  the  churches  we  had;  that,  is  now  in  a  great  measure  re- 
medied. There  is  no  necessity  of  building  more  churches  in 
that  part  of  the  town,  until  those  already  constructed,  are  filled. 

Q.  Is  there  not  a  great  want  of  Episcopal  churches  in  the 
eastern  and  northeastern  parts  of  the  city,  for  the  poor  or  work- 
ing-classes ?  A.  I  presume  it  is  so;  it  is  so  represented.  It  is 
not  in  my  parish.  I  do  not  know  what  the  religious  opinions 
are  of  the  population  in  those  parts  of  the  city. 

Examination  by  counsel  for  Trinity  church. — Samuel  T.  Skid- 
more  called  and  sworn. — Q.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  vestry  of 
Trinity  church'?  How  long  have  you  been,  and  how  long  a 
member  of  the  standing  committee  1  A.  I  have  been  a  member 
of  the  vestry  about  ten  years,  and  of  the  standing  committee 
some  six  or  eight  years. 

Q.  Is  there  any  rule  of  the  vestry,  or  directions  of  the  stand- 
ing committee,  which  prevents  a  corporator  seeing  the  list  of 
the  corporators  1    A.  None  that  I  am  aware  of,  or  ever  heard  of. 

Q.  Do  you  understand  that  any  corporator  has  a  right  to  see 
the  list?    A.  I  do. 

Q.  If  there  has  been  a  refusal  to  show  such  list,  was  it  by  any 
directions  of  the  vestry,  or  standing  committee  ?  A.  No,  sir; 
not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Q.  Was  ever  any  request,  either  for  an  inspection,  or  copy  of 
the  list  of  corporators,  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  vestry  ? 


ON  AFFAiaS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


215 


A.  The  attention  of  the  vestry  was  called  to  an  application  by 
Dr.  Wainright  to  get  a  copy  of  the  list  of  corporators. 

Q.  Was  it  granted  ?    A.  It  was,  unanimously,  I  believe. 

Q.  Was  any  other  application,  either  for  an  inspection,  or 
copy,  ever  made  to  the  vestry  1    A.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Q.  Have  the  grants  made  by  the  vestry  been  made  in  a  parti- 
zan  spirit,  or  with  reference  to  "  high"  church  and  "  low"  church 
opinions  ?  A.  I  should  say,  decidedly  not.  I  would  say  fur- 
ther, that  the  question  of  "  high"  and  "low"  church,  during 
the  time  I  have  been  in  the  vestry,  has  been  very  seldom,  if  ever, 
alluded  to;  and  if  I  thought  that  an  application,  in  all  other 
respects  meritorious,  should  be  rejected  on  the  ground  of  its 
being  "  low"  church,  I  should  resign  my  place  as  a  member  of 
the  standing  committee. 

Q.  Have  the  vestry  been,  to  your  knowledge  or  judgment, 
partial  in  making  their  appropriations  to  other  churches  1  A.  1 
have  always  endeavored  to  be  impartial  myself,  and  I  have  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  the  other  members  were  actuated  by  the 
same  motives. 

Q.  What  influenced  the  standing  committee  and  the  vestry  in 
their  action  upon  the  application  ot  St.  Matthew's  Church  1  A. 
St.  Matthew's  made  a  large  demand  upon  Trinity,  larger  than  we 
thought  we  could  reasonably  grant,  and  we  thought  that  in  the 
then  state  of  that  parish,  that  a  partial  appropriation  would  do 
but  little  good.  I  would  state  that  the  application  seemed 
couched  in  very  peremptory  terms,  and  I  recollect  that,  as  a 
member  of  the  standing  committee,  I  said  we  should  divest  our- 
selves of  all  feeling  in  consequence  of  the  peculiar  style  of  the 
application,  and  aid  them  if  we  could.  We  had  very  little  faith 
of  the  church  succeeding  if  we  did  aid  them.  There  were  other 
churches  in  the  vicinity. 

Q.  It  is  charged  that  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  have  mate- 
rially reduced  the  stipends  formerly  paid  to  clergymen  in  the 
city  of  New-York.  How  is  the  fact  1  A.  Trinity  Church  has 
taken  away  stipends  from  certain  churches  whose  congregations 


216 


REPORT  OR  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


thej'  thought  did  not  need  them,  being  abundantly  able  to  3o 
without  them;  and  grants  of  stipends  were  made  in  other  in- 
stances where  they  were  more  needed  The  aggregate,  I  think, 
has  not  been  reduced. 

Q.  Do  you  think  Trinity  Church  has  done  its  utmost  to  make 
the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation  available  for  the 
founding  or  support,  or  promotion  of  religious,  charitable  or 
educational  institutions,  or  purposes  A.  I  think  Trinity 
Church  has  made  appropriations  for  religious  objects  as  far,  if 
not  farther,  than  prudence  would  warrant  in  reference  to  her 
means. 

Q.  Have  its  expenditures  and  donations  exceeded  or  fallen 
short  of  its  income?  A.  I  think  that  for  the  last  two  or  three 
years  her  expenditures  have  exceeded  her  income  considerably 
over  $100,000;  I  think  for  .ome  years  previous, for  the  past  half 
dozen  years, her  expenditures  have  largely  exceeded  her  income. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  in  your  judgment  these  expendi- 
tures have  been  discreetly  and  wisely  made?  A.  I  certainly 
think  so,  except  as  to  the  undue  extent. 

Q.  What  was  the  rule  that  governed  the  vestry,  in  regard  to 
helping  churches  of  feeble  means  ?  A.  I  think  that  one  favorite 
kind  of  appropriation  was  to  parishes  that  had  made  great 
eiforts  to  help  themselves,  which  had  received  help  from  others, 
and  where  additional  aid  from  Trinity  Church  was  highly  essen- 
tial to  ensure  success. 

Q.  Is  it  true  that  aid  was  given  to  churches  reluctantly  and 
offensively  ?  A.  Reluctantly,  only,  when  we  thought  our  sym- 
pathies were  running  away  with  our  better  judgment.  Never 
offensively,  I  should  hope.  Applications  are  very  numerous 
and  very  many  of  a  highly  meritorious  character,  and  which 
enlisted  our  strongest  sympathies,  we  have  felt  compelled  most 
reluctantly  to  refuse.  When  we  had  the  means  we  took  great 
pleasure  in  granting  their  application. 

Q.  What  proportion  of  the  applications  were  you  able  to  act 
upon  favorably?   A.  I  certainly  think  not  over  one-tenth. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHUBCH. 


217 


Q.  Do  YOU  remember  any  meeting  of  the  vestry  -when  you  had 
not  a  large  number  of  those  applications  pending  before  you  ? 
A.  I  do  not  remember  any  meeting  of  the  vestry  Avheu  there 
were  not  more  or  less  of  these  applications  pending  before  us, 
unless  a  meeting  of  the  vestry  had  been  held  just  atter  the 
■whole  number  before  the  vestry  of  these  applications  had  been 
disposed  of.  There  have  been  temporary  periods  when  it  was 
generally  understood  that  Trinity's  inability  to  resp  ond  favora- 
bly to  applications  would  cause  temporary  cessation  or  postpone- 
ment of  them. 

Q.  Were  any  grants  made  by  the  vestry  with  a  view  to  power 
or  influence  ?  A.  I  should  answer,  in  my  opinion,  most  deci- 
dedly no. 

Q.  What  have  you  to  say  about  the  erection  of  Trinity  chapel 
and  the  leases  of  pews  in  it  1  A.  Trinity  chapel  j  the  chief  ob- 
ject in  building  it  was,  first  and  principally,  for  the  accommo- 
dation of  the  parishioners  and  their  families  who  had  been  a 
long  time  in  the  parish,  but  who  had  removed  too  far  from  the 
parish  church  and  chapel  to  continue  to  worship  therein,  and 
thus,  by  inducing  their  return,  increase,  as  a  consequence,  the 
number  of  their  constituency.  When  the  chapel  was  finished, 
the  vestry  adopted  such  plans  for  disposing  of  the  pews  as  they 
thought  best  calculated  to  attain  those  objects.  But,  inasmuch 
as  some  of  th°  features  of  those  plans,  such  as  the  disposing  of 
them  by  an  auction,  were  of  a  somewhat  novel  character,  they 
determined  to  act  cautiously  and  prudently  in  the  first  lettings 
of  those  pews.  The  first  day's  biddings  (as  is  known,)  were  con- 
fined to  the  then  actual  corporators  of  the  parish,  and  to  those 
who  had  been  pew  owners  at  any  time  within  the  preceding  ten 
years.  After  which  all  such  pews  as  were  not  then  taken,  were 
on  a  subsequent  day  disposed  of  at  auction,  the  competition 
being  general,  to  any  one  desirous  of  procuring  a  pew  in  the 
chapel.  Particular  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that 
the  first  leases  given  for  pews  in  the  new  chapel  were  drawn  so 
as  to  expire  just  one  or  two  days  before  the  annual  election.  If 
they  had  been  made  to  expire  on  the  day  after  the  election,  the 
lessees  would  not  in  either  case  have  been  entitled,  by  virtue  of 


218 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE. 


those  leases  alone,  to  vote,  for  the  reason  that  they  would  not 
have  been  members  of  the  congregation  for  the  full  term  of  one 
year  before  the  election.  If  such  feature,  or  any  other  feature, 
about  those  first  leases  be  deemed,  therefore,  peculiar  or  un- 
usual, it  must  be  attributed  to  over  carefulness  on  the  part  of 
the  vestry,  and  a  strong  desire  not  to  admit  improper  persons  as 
corporators.  The  result  of  the  lettings  of  the  pews  was,  how- 
ever, highly  satisfactory  and  gratifying  to  the  vestry,  and  they 
thereupon,  in  due  season  and  before  the  next  election,  ordered 
the  future  leases  of  the  pews  to  be  made  to  terminate  on  1st  day 
of  May  in  each  successive  year,  as  in  other  chapels.  Chapel 
consecrated  April  17,  1855,  when  first  services  were  performed  j 
election  held  March  25,  1856. 

Q.  Is  it  true  that  the  vestry  was  governed  by  the  policy  of 
*'  accumulation,"  as  is  charged  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Bradish"? 
A.  I  answer  by  saying  that  I  think  the  expenditure  of  tens  of 
thousands  of  dollars  per  annum  beyond  her  income  does  not 
show  such  a  disposition. 

By  the  Senate  Committee : 

Q.  What  is  the  lot  at  the  corner  of  Murray-street  and  Broad- 
way, (No.  251  Broadway,)  worth  1  A.  Of  all  the  real  estate  of 
Trinity  Church,  there  is  not  one  that  I  consider  so  valuable,  as 
that  on  the  corner  of  Murray-street  and  Broadway  I  should 
think  it  would  sell  for  $75,000,  or  $100,000,  if  it  was  entirely 
free  from  lease,  or  any  incumbrances. 

Q.  Will  you  see  what  it  is  returned  at,  in  this  report  of  Tri- 
nity Church?  (showing  witness  report.)  A.  It  is  stated  here, 
at  $36,750. 

Q.  When  you  made  the  report,  did  you  know  of  the  sale  to 
James  H.  Noe  1  A.  1  recollect  the  sale  of  a  Greenwich-street 
lot  for  $20,000,  but  do  not  remember  the  purchaser's  name,  nor 
whether  the  sale  was  before,  or  after  the  Vestry's  report. 

Q.  Did  you  know  of  the  sale  at  the  time  it  was  made  1  A. 
I  did.  If  it  was  sold  before  the  report,  it  was  included  through 
inadvertence. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


219 


Q.  Were  you  a  vestryman  at  the  time  the  report  of  Feb.  15, 
1856  was  made?    A.  Yes  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  not,  with  others,  negotiate  for  the  disposition  of 
property,  on  the  corner  of  Chambers  and  Church-streets,  and 
what  valuations  did  you  put  upon  it,  for  the  Hudson  River  Rail- 
road Company,  and  at  what  time  was  the  bargain  made?  A. 
$5,000  per  annum,  which  is  5  per  cent  on  $100,000. 

Q.  How  much  do  you  make  the  lot  worth,  estimating  it  in 
that  manner  ?  A.  It  would  be  worth  $100,000,  estimating  it  in 
that  manner.  The  church  put  no  valuation  on  it,  but  only 
talked  about  what  it  would  rent  for. 

Q.  Does  not  Trinity  Church  rent  her  lots  in  all  cases,  at  five 
per  cent  on  what  she  estimates  to  be  their  value  ?  A.  It  is  the 
usual  custom,  where  the  leases  are  renewable,  but  where  a  lease 
falls  in,  we  do  not  feel  ourselves  bound  by  any  such  rule. 

Q.  Will  you  look,  and  see  what  those  lots  are  returned  at  ? 
(showing  witness  report.)  A.  They  are  returned  at  $29,500, 
based  on  the  assessor's  valuation. 

Adjourned  to  4  P.  M.,  on  Friday. 


Friday,  February  20,  1857. 
Present  : — Senate  committee  and  counsel  as  before. 

Examination  of  Mr.  Samuel  F.  Skidmore,  continued — Q.  Ey 
Mr.  Spencer.  During  the  three  years  Trinity  incurred  a  debt  of 
over  $100,000,  was  she  not  building  Trinity  Chapel  ?  A.  She 
was.  Those  expenditures  I  allude  to  were  independent  of  the 
building  of  the  Chapel.  -  • 

Q.  Is  the  Annunciation  a  feeble  church  ?  A.  As  to  its  pre- 
sent circumstances  and  condition  I  am  entirely  ignorant. 

Q.  What  sum  has  Trinity  given  her  within  a  year  or  two 
past  ?  A.  The  sum,  as  appears  by  the  report,  in  the  aggregate, 
is  $26,800.  It  appears  by  the  report  to  have  been  given  within 
five  years  preceding  the  date  of  the  report.  We  gave  St.  Luke's 
Church,  for  the  year  preceding  the  date  of  the  report,  $2,100 


220 


EEPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


whicli  I  think  was  larger  than  any  preceding  year.  I  suppose 
we  shall  not  give  them  less  the  present  year.  The  Annuncia- 
tion and  St.  Luke's  Churches  are  reputed  to  be  high  churches. 

Q.  Do  you  find  any  such  sums  given  to  any  low  churches 
during  the  same  time.  A.  No  sir.  I  see  no  such  sums  given  to 
either  high  or  low  churches. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  know  a  corporator  to  look  at  the  list  of 
corporators.  A.  I  don't  know  that  I  ever  saw  one  examining 
the  list. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  know  of  all  the  expenditures  of  Trinity 
Church,  ecclesiastical  or  otherwise?    A.  I  should  think  I  did. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  such  disbursements  that  were  not 
directly  for  charitable,  religious  or  benevolent  purposes  ?  A.  I 
think  very  probable  there  might  have  been  disbursements  for 
other  than  those  objects. 

Q.  What  other  object  would  they  spend  money  for  ?  A.  I 
cannot  call  to  mind  the  particulars  of  other  disbursements. 

Q.  Is  the  estate  of  Trinity  Church  increasing  in  value.  A.  I 
think  it  is  worth  more  now  than  at  any  former  period,  and  more 
than  when  assessor's  valuation  was  made. 

Q.  Does  the  vestry  make  an  annual  report  of  the  financial 
condition  of  the  corjjoration.  A.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  comp- 
troller, as  well  as  the  custom  for  him  to  make  such  report  to  the 
vestry. 

Q.  Is  there  a  report  made  by  the  vestry  to  the  corporators  ? 
A.  There  is  not. 

o  Q.  Is  the  annual  report  of  the  comptroller  printed  or  circu- 
lated 1   A  It  is  not. 

Q.  What  appropriations  within  the  three  years  preceding  13th 
April,  1855,  has  Trinity  Church  made  to  institutions  of  charity, 
benevolence  and  learning  in  the  city  of  New  York?  A.  I  read 
from  the  report  of  the  church :  "Grants  of  burial  plots  in 
Trinity  cemetery  to  the  Orphan  Asylum  a  plot  of  621  square 
feet;  to  the  Society  of  Aged  and  Indigent  Females  a  plot  com- 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


221 


taining  300  square  feet;  to  the  Protestant  Benefit  Society  a  plot 
containing  GOO  square  feet ;  to  Christ's  church  a  plot  to  be  se- 
lected ;  tu  the  Orphans'  Home  a  plot  to  be  selected ;"  and  as  this 
was  the  period  during  which  we  were  building  Trinity  chapel, 
I  presume  there  were  no  others. 

Question  by  Judge  Parker  : — How  long  were  the  vestry  in 
making  out  iheir  report  1    A.  Several  months. 

Q.  If  there  was  any  omission  to  correct  the  report  of  the 
church,  in  regard  to  a  lot  sold  after  the  report  was  made  out 
and  before  its  date,  was  it  from  design  or  inadvertence  ?  A. 
It  was  from  inadvertence  undoubtedly. 

Q.  Does  the  report  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  state  the 
valuation  of  the  real  estate  of  the  corporation,  as  founded  upon 
the  estimates  of  the  vestry,  or  upon  the  valuations  of  the  city 
assessor,  made  for  the  purposes  of  city  taxation  1  A.  Not  as  her 
own  valuation,  but  as  the  valuation  of  the  sworn  city  assessors^ 
I  would  further  say,  that  the  vestry  had  no  desire  to  depreciate 
the  value  of  their  property  by  adopting  the  valuation  of  the  city 
assessors  as  the  basis  of  their  report,  for  they  supposed  that  to  be 
near  enough  for  all  practical  purposes,  and  if  deemed  below  its 
real  or  actual  value  any  two  or  three  gentlemen,  familiar  with 
the  value  of  city  property,  could  easily  have  agreed  upon  some 
additional  percentage  necessary  to  bring  it  up  to  their  own 
opinion  of  its  fair,  if  not  its  exact  and  actual  value;  and  they 
were  equally  anxious  to  avoid  all  exaggeration  of  the  value  of 
their  real  estate,  which  would  thereby  induce  large  and  more 
numerous  applications  for  aid,  when  they  have  so  many  beyond 
their  ability  to  grant. 

Q.  When  the  comptroller  makes  his  annual  report  to  the  vestry, 
what  is  done  with  it  1  A.  The  comptroller  makes  out  his  annual 
report  according  to  custom,  which  is  examined  and  certified  to 
by  an  auditing  committee,  appointed  by  the  vestry  for  that  pur- 
pose. It  is  then  read  to  a  meeting  of  the  vestry,  and  laid  upon 
the  table,  or  ordered  on  file,  subject  to  any  further  examination 
in  detail,  by  any  member  of  the  vestry. 


222 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Q.  How  long  has  it  been  the  practice  to  make  these  annual 
reports  1  A.  During  the  whole  time  of  my  being  a  member  of 
tlie  vestry,  and,  as  I  suppose,  always. 

Q.  What  is  the  object  in  taking  mortgages,  where  a  grant  is 
made"?  A.  These  church  mortgages  are  taken  and  held  by 
Trinity  Church,  not  for  their  own  private  benefit,  but  (and  in 
good  faith)  for  the  benefit  of  other  churches.  They  never  have 
demanded,  nor  do  they  expect  to  demand,  either  the  principal  or 
interest  of  these  loans,  except  in  occasional  isolated  cases;  such 
for  instance,  as  the  foreclosure  of  a  prior  mortgage,  or  to  save 
the  church  properties  from  being  disposed  of  improperly,  or  for 
other  than  church  objects  and  purposes.  The  parties  obtaining 
these  loans,  (which  they  look  upon  virtually  as  gifts,)  do  not 
object  to  giving  such  mortgages  on  their  churches,  but  generally 
view  the  requirement  of  them  as  a  wise  and  conservative  mea- 
sure for  perpetuating  the  original  object  and  intention  of  the 
grant.  The  character  of  these  mortgages  is  so  well  and  so  gene- 
rally understood,  that  an  attempt  to  foreclose  any  one  of  them, 
on  the  part  of  Trinity  Church,  for  the  purpose  of  restoring  the 
amount  again  to  their  own  coifers,  would  be  regarded  as  little 
short  of  absolute  dishonesty.  If  the  same  objects  aimed  at  in 
these  loans,  could  be  equally  well  secured  in  some  other  way,  I 
confidently  believe  that  no  desire  on  the  part  of  Trinity  Church 
to  keep  alive  a  sense  of  obligation  to  her  on  the  part  of  the  re- 
cipients of  her  favors  would,  for  one  moment,  stand  in  the  way 
of  the  change.  For  the  foregoing  reasons,  I  think  that  the 
principal  and  interest  of  those  mortgages,  (amounting  to  $571,- 
952,)  ought  not  to  be  considered  as  part  of  the  wealth  of  Trinity 
Church,  nor  be  made  to  show  a  seeming  intention,  on  her  part,  to 
withhold  from  the  Honorable  the  Senate,  essential  and  import- 
ant facts  respecting  her  property. 

Q.  Has  the  church  ever  foreclosed  any  of  these  mortgages? 
A.  None  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Can  you  make  any  statement  relative  to  the  interest  of 
Trinity  Church  in  St.  John's  Park,  and  the  reason  it  was  omitted 
in  their  report?    A.  I  will  state  that  Trinity  Church  looked 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


223 


upon  that  park  as  so  permanently  appropriated  for  the  purposes 
of  a  park,  that  the  sale  of  it,  apparently,  no  more  entered  their 
minds,  than  the  sale  of  one  of  Iheir  burial  grounds.  The  agita- 
tion of  the  subject  of  the  sale  was  started  by  the  other  property 
owners,  after  the  report  of  the  church  was  made.  The  statement 
upon  that  subject  in  the  supplemental  report  of  the  vestry  is  cor- 
rect; the  whole  number  of  lots  interested  in  the  park  is  sixty-four, 
of  which  Trinity  Church  owns  seven,  being  one-ninth  of  the 
whole.  I  will  further  state,  it  was  supposed  on  part  of  some  of 
the  property  owners,  that  they  would  be  able  to  get  from  the 
United  States  Government  some  six  or  seven  hundred  thousand 
dollars  for  the  property.  I  do  not  know  whether  they  actually 
had  an  offer  for  it  or  not,  but  even  if  sold  at  that  price,  the  pro- 
rata share  of  Trinity  Church  would  be  about  seventy  thousand 
dollars.  St.  John's  chapel  and  parsonage  and  Sunday  school 
stand  on  these  seven  lots,  the  rest  is  vacant  ground. 

Q.  Have  you  been  on  the  committee  to  examine  the  comptrol- 
ler's report,  and  had  you  free  access  to  all  the  books,  papers  and 
accounts?  A.  I  have  been  on  the  committee,  and  had  free 
access  to  all  the  books,  papers  and  accounts. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  of  any  member  of  the  vestry  being  de- 
'  Died  free  access  to  the  books  ?    A.  Never  knew  or  heard  of  any 
such  thing,  except  in  the' testimony  annexed  to  the  committee's 
report. 

Q.  Have  the  standing  committee  power  to  sell  a  lot  without 
the  consent  of  the  vestry  1  A.  It  is  not  their  custom,  and  I 
understand  they  have  not  the  power. 

Q.  What  means  have  the  members  of  ever  knowing  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  standing  committee  1  A.  The  standing  commit- 
tee keep  full  minutes  of  all  their  proceedings,  and  which  are 
read  to  the  vestry  at  every  vestry  meeting. 

Q.  Is  each  report  and  recommendation  by  the  standing  com- 
mittee then  passed  upon  separately  by  the  vestry  1  A.  They 
are. 

Q.  Have  the  vestry  in  any  way  endeavored  to  control  the  free 
opinions  and  acts  of  the  vestry  and  ministers  who  had  received  or 
■were  seeking  aid  for  their  churches  t    A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Q.  State  the  proceedings  ot  the  vestry  for  making  the  minis- 
tration of  the  church  more  efficient  iu  the  lower  part  of  the  city, 
and  the  dates  at  which  they  took  place  1  A.  May  8th,  1854,  at 
a  vestry  meeting,  resolutions  were  offered  for  the  appointment  of 
Dr.  Haight  and  Messrs.  Hobart  and  Weston,  as  assistant  minis- 
ters ;  the  resolutions  were  referred  to  a  committee  on  the  state 
of  the  parish.    March  5,  1855,  resolutions  were  adopted  that  on 

 day,  the  assistant  ministers  shall  be  appointed  by  ballot, 

and  that  they  be  assigned  to  a  particular  congregation.  March 
26,  1855,  the  above  named  gentlemen  were  appointed  assistant 
ministers,  and  on  the  11th  of  June,  1855,  they  w^ere  severally 
assigned  to  their  respective  congregations.  The  resolutions  of 
the  8th  of  May,  1854,  had  reference  to  the  appointment  of  assis- 
tant ministers,  and  their  assignment  to  their  different  churches. 
The  resolutions  of  8th  May  had  reference  to  the  appointment  of 
the  different  churches. 

Q.  State  what  were  the  proceedings  of  the  vestry  and  stand- 
ing committee  on  the  subject  of  the  application  of  the  church  of 
St.  Timothy,  and  what  influenced  their  action  ?  A.  TJie  Rev. 
Mr.  Howland  made  an  application  to  the  vestry  of  Trinity 
Church  of  a  noble  and  magnanimous  character,  which  was 
referred  as  is  usual  to  the  standing  committee,  tho  gh  at  a  time 
when  the  committee  considered  the  financial  condition  of  the 
parish  illy  calculated  to  respond  favorably  to  so  large  an 
application.  They  were  still  anxious  if  possible  not  to  be 
obliged  to  reject  it.  The  proposal  on  the  part  of  Mr.  How- 
land,  involved  liabilities  to  the  amount  of  twenty  thousand  dol- 
lars. He  proposed  to  appropriate  dollar  for  dollar,  or  upwards, 
for  the  same  object.  The  committee  were  so  desirous  of  doing 
something,  they  invited  Mr.  Howland  on  one  or  to  occasions  to 
meet  with  them  in  committee.  After  long  and  anxious  consid- 
eration on  the  subject,  they  felt  compelled  to  report  to  the  vestry 
unfavorably  to  the  application.  The  vestry  did  not  adopt  the 
report,  but  sent  it  back  for  further  consideration.  Yet,  after 
further  consideration,  and  with  the  strong  sympathies  of  every 
member  of  the  vestry  in  behalf  of  the  application,  the  standing 
committee  again  reported  unanimously  against  it,  for  the  reason 
that  the  increased  magnitude  of  their  debt  in  their  judgment 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


225 


forbade  it.  Notwithstanding  this  report,  the  vestry  ordered  it 
to  lie  on  the  table,  where  it  is  now. 

Were  any  applications  made  during  the  last  year  for  the 
establishment  of  two  free  churches  in  destitute  parts  of  the  city, 
provided  the  applicants  would  furnish  half  the  cost?  A.  None, 
except  the  application  to  Mr.  Howland. 

Q.  How  long  a  lease  is  there  on  the  lot  No.  251  Broadway, 
and  at  what  annual  rent  1  A.  An  unexpired  lease  ol  about  six- 
teen years,  and  at  an  annual  rent  of  twenty-six  dollars  and  a 
quarter. 

Q.  Was  there  any  service  in  Trinity  Chapel  until  its  conse- 
cration, and  on  what  date  was  its  consecration,  and  what  day  was 
next  election  held  ?  A.  There  was  no  service  previous  to  the 
consecration,  which  was  on  the  17th  day  of  April,  1855,  and  the 
next  election  was  on  Easter  Tuesday,  the  25th  March,  1856. 

Q.  What  statement  have  you  to  make  in  regard  to  the  valua- 
tion of  the  property  of  the  church,  which  would  be  correct  upon 
Ely's  and  Dodd's  valuations  of  the  real  estate  ?  A.  There  seems 
to  be  a  mistake  in  the  principle  adopted  for  arriving  at  the  nett 
total  present  value  of  the  real  estate,  as  stated  on  page  twelve  of 
the  Senate  report.  The  Vestry's  estimate,  taking  the  valuations 
of  the  assessors  as  a  guide,  irrespective  of  the  leases  and  deduc- 
tions, was  12,668,710, 

Q.  Then  if  the  above  valuation  of  $2,668,710,  makes  the 
present  value  of  the  interest  of  the  lessees  to  be  $1,222,338,  what 
would  the  interest  of  the  lessees  be  on  Ely's  and  Dodd's  valuation 
of  $5,874,023  1  A  $2,690,443,  or  very  nearly  that  amount. 
The  aggregate  footing  in  Senate  committee  report  is,  $7,092,544 
From  which  deduct  on  account  of  leases  according  to 

above  corrected  estimate,   $2,690,443 

And  the  church  debt  of,     648,913 

  3,339,356 

Leaves,   $3,753,188 


15 


226 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


The  nett  total  present  value  even  on  Messrs.  Ely  and  Dodd's 

valuation,  should  therefore  be   |3,753,188 

Instead  of  (as  stated  in  report  of  Senate  committee)  5,221,293 

Making  in  this  one  item  an  error  evidently  of  about  $1,468,105 


From  the  nett  total  present  value  as  above  correct- 
ed of   $3,753,188 

Deduct  the  church  mortgages  and  interest,  $571,952 

And  tb^  '^wiount  set  down  for  St.  John's 

park.i     .    400,000 


971,952 


And  a  nett  total  present  value  would  then  remain  of   $2,781 ,236 
As  the  nett  amount  resulting  from  the  adoption  of 
Messrs.  Ely  and  Dodd's  valuation.    By  adding 
thereto  a  prospective  pecuniary  interest  in  St. 
John's  park, the  sura  of  say   $75,000 


And  it  would  make  the  aggregate  amount,   $2,856,236 


This,  be  it  remembered,  is  a  valuation  entirely  irrespective  of 
the  existing  encumbrances  by  leases,  which  would  greatly  reduce 
its  present  value  to  Trinity  Church;  and  be  it  also  remembered, 
that  nearly  one-half  of  the  entire  real  estate  brings  Trinity 
Church  an  income  of  less  than  five  hundred  dollars  per  annum. 

By  Senate  Committee : 

Q.  What  valuation  did  the  vestry  put  upon  St.  John's  park? 
A.  They  did  not  profess  to  put  a  valuation  on  that  property,  but 
after  showing  the  strongest  disinclination  to  sell  at  all,  and  be- 
ing earnestly  importuned  and  pressed  to  name  some  terms  upon 
which  they  would  give  their  consent  to  sell,  they  finally  agreed 
to  do  so,  when  their  share  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  should  be 
$400,000. 

Q.  Have  the  standing  committee  power  to  lease  lots  without 
the  consent  of  the  vestry  1  A.  They  have  to  lease,  but  not  to 
sell.  The  standing  committee  leases  property  without  consult- 
ing the  vestry. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CaiURCH. 


227 


Q.  Have  not  the  vestry  been  urged  by  some  of  its  members 
to  print  the  annual  report  ?  A.  There  was  one  very  respectable 
member  of  our  vestry  has  been  solicitous  to  have  the  report 
printed  for  the  use  of  the  vestry,  but  a  majority  have  been  dis- 
inclined to  do  so. 

Rev.  Edward  G.  Highee,  called  by  counsel  for  Trinity  Church. 

Q.  What  explanation  do  you  desire  to  make  in  relation  to 
your  former  testimony  before  this  committee  ?  A.  On  the  3d  of 
Dec,  1856,  I  was  called  upon  to  give  testimony  before  a  com- 
mittee of  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  New- York,  in  relation  to 
parish  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of  New- York.  The  inter- 
rogatories were  few,  and  the  answers  necessarily  short  and 
general,  and  I  fear  that  without  further  explanation  my  testi- 
mony will  not  be  understood.  I  kept  no  memoranda  of  my  in- 
terview with  the  committee,  but  as  well  as  I  can  remember,  one 
■of  the  first  proposed  to  me  was  as  follows  (substantially) : 

"  During  the  time  that  you  have  been  connected  with  the 
parish  of  Trinity  Church,  in  your  opinion  has  the  design  of  the 
original  foundation  of  the  same  been  fully  carried  out?''  A. 
*'  My  belief  is,  that  owing  to  temporary  and  accidental  circum- 
stances, the  influence  of  which  has  been  increasing  almost  from 
the  time  that  I  became  a  minister  of  the  parish,  the  original 
design  of  this  charity  has  not  been  fully  carried  out." 

This,  in  substance,  was  my  answer.  I  was  not  requested  to 
state  what  the  "  temporary  and  accidental  circumstance?"  were 
to  which  I  alluded.  Such  a  statement,  however,  appears  neces- 
sary, to  show  the  true  meaning  of  my  testimony. 

I  therefore  beg  permission  to  say,  that  I  alluded  to  the  general 
and  yearly  increasing  removal  of  the  residences  of  the  citizens 
of  New-York  towards  the  more  northern  part  of  the  island,  and 
to  the  efFects  of  this  upon  the  churches,  of  all  denominations, 
in  the  lower  parts  of  the  city. 

The  elFect  upon  Trinity  Church,  and  its  chapels,  (more  par- 
ticularly upon  Trinity  Church  and  St.  Paul's  chapel,)  was,  first, 
to  deprive  them,  gradually  and  surely,  of  their  regular  congre- 
gations, and,  of  course  of  their  congregational  and  parochial 


228 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


spirit,  responsibility  and  efficiency  ;  and  secondly,  to  diminish 
and  weaken,  in  a  continually  increasing  ratio,  the  constituency 
of  the  corporation  ;  thus  destroying  the  equilibrium  of  the 
parish,  and  undermining  its  foundations  as  an  institution  of 
public  charity. 

For  a  long  time  there  seemed  to  be  no  remedy  for  this  evil. 
The  vestry  were  restrained,  (as  I  have  always  understood,)  by 
the  terms  of  their  charter,  from  acquiring  real  estate,  and  there- 
fore, could  not  follow  the  members  of  their  church  to  their  new 
residences,  and  supply  them  with  places  of  worship. 

At  length,  a  means  of  removing  the  difficulty  was  aiforded,  by 
a  general  act  of  the  Legislature,  passed  I  believe,  in  1850." 
Under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  ground  was  purchased,  upon 
which  Trinity  chapel  now  stands.  This  chapel  was  opened  in 
1855,  in  the  spring,  and  it  has  been,  and  is  now  filled,  with  a 
large,  stated,  intelligent  and  charitable  congregation  ;  and  there 
can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  result  of  this  decided 
movement  in  a  right  direction,  is  a  most  salutary  one  to  the 
whole  parish,  and  is  full  of  promise  for  the  future. 

I  believe  that  the  clergy  of  Trinity  Church  are  united,  and 
that  the  parishioners  sympathise  with  them  in  the  desire  and  the 
resolution  to  make,  so  far  as  in  them  lies,  this  ancient  parish  an 
instrument  of  good  to  the  church,  and  to  the  community  at 
large,  to  the  utmost  extent  of  its  resources. 

Another  question  proposed  by  the  committee,  was  in  sub- 
stance as  follows : 

"  Have  you  ever  seen  a  list  of  the  constituents  of  Trinity 
Parish  1" 

A.  (In  substance,)  "  I  have  never  seen  such  a  list  Dr.  Wain- 
right  and  I  made  repeated  eftorts  to  procure  one,  without  suc- 
cess Dr.  Wainright,  however,  as  he  informed  me,  did  obtain 
it  from  the  vestry  after  he  was  elected  to  the  episcopate." 

This  answer  is  too  vague  and  general.  Had  there  been  oppor- 
tunity for  more  careful  recollection  when  I  was  before  the  com- 
mittee, my  answer  would  have  been  as  follows  : 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


229 


"For  a  long  time  Drs.  Wainwright,  Parks,  and  myself,  assis- 
tant ministers,  had  been  filled  with  anxiety  and  apprehension  on 
account  of  the  steady  diminution  of  the  constituency  of  the 
parish.  Wishing  to  keep  ourselves  informed  of  the  real  condi- 
tion of  things  we  sought  to  procure  a  true  list  of  the  constituents. 
We  were  reluctant  to  ask  formally  for  the  official  list  of  the 
parish,  because  suggestions  had  been  made  to  us  that  we  might 
thereby  incur  the  imputation  of  intending  to  take  some  active 
part  in  the  Easter  elections.  We  therefore  tried  to  make  a  list 
for  ourselves  from  such  sources  ot  information  as  were  within 
our  reach.  Failing  in  this  Dr.  Wainwright  and  I,  (Dr.  Parks 
being  absent  on  account  of  the  illness  of  which  afterwards  he 
died,)  resolved  that  we  ought  formally  to  request  a  copy  of  the 
list  kept  in  the  vestry  office,  or  by  the  rector.  Dr.  Wainwright 
in  his  and  my  behalf,  did  accordingly  make  such  an  application. 
When  he  first  made  it  I  do  not  now  remember,  nor  how  often  it 
was  repeated;  but  I  know  that,  as  he  informed  me,  such  a  list 
was  furnished  him  some  time  after  his  election  to  the  episcopate. 

The  foregoing  explanations  are  true. 

EDWARD  Y.  HIGBEE.. 

New-York,  January  5,  1857. 

Rev.  William  H.  De  Lancy  called  and  sworn;  examination  by 
Senate  Committee. 

Q.  Where  is  your  residence  and  what  is  your  office  ?  A.  My 
residence  is  in  Geneva,  Ontario  county,  Western  New- York;  and 
my  office  is  that  of  bishop  of  the  diocese  of  Western  New- York, 
to  which  office  I  was  consecrated  in  1839. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  State  of  New- York  does  your  diocese 
comprehend"?  A  The  western  part,  including  Broome,  Che- 
nango, Madison,  Oneida,  Lewis,  and  Jefierson  counties,  with  all 
the  counties  west  of  them. 

Has  Trinity  Church,  New-York,  aided  any  of  the  churches 
in  your  diocese  1  A.  Yes,  I  learn  from  the  publications  of  the 
rector  of  Trinity  Church  that  she  has  aided  altogether,  since 
1807,  in  Western  New- York,  about  77  churches,  being  6  before 


230 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


the  year  1814,  and  71  churches  since  that  year.  Some  were 
aided  twice.  Of  those  71  aided  since  1814,  about  20  have  been 
aided  since  I  became  bishop. 

Q.  In  what  way  has  the  aid  of  Trinity  Church  been  extended 
to  those  churches?  A.  In  almost  every  case,  except  Trinity 
church,  Utica,  as  far  as  I  know,  by  grants  of  money,  in  small 
sums,  for  churches  and  parsonages,  for  which  grants  in  some 
cases  Trinity  Church  has  taken  a  mortgage  on  the  church,  and 
in  other  cases  she  has  not. 

Q.  Has  Trinity  Church  ever  foreclosed  any  of  the  mortgages 
on  churches,  or  ever  required  the  annual  interest  on  them  to  be 
paid  to  her?  A.  I  have  never  heard  or  known  of  any  such 
cases  in  Western  New-York  or  elsewhere.  I  do  not  usually  con- 
secrate a  new  church  edifice,  until  the  vestry  certify  tliat  its 
debts  are  paid  or  reasonably  provided  for.  A  mortgage  to 
Trinity  Church,  on  which  neither  principal  nor  interest  are 
demanded,  I  do  not  consider  an  obstacle  to  the  consecration  of 
a  new  church,  but  as  additional  security  against  its  alienation 
from  its  holy  objects. 

Q.  Has  any  church  in  your  diocese,  to  which  Trinity  has 
made  a  grant  of  money  without  taking  a  mortgage  on  church 
edifice,  ever  been  lost  to  the  congregation  or  diocese?  A.  Yes; 
a  church  on  which  Trinity  Church  took  no  mortgage  for  a  grant 
of  $500,  was  sold  for  debt,  and  the  congregation  dispersed.  A 
mortgage  to  Trinity  Church  would  have  saved  it,  or  at  least 
saved  the  $500,  for  the  use  of  the  diocese  elsewhere. 

Q  When  Trinity  Church  has  thus  taken  mortgages  from 
churches  in  your  diocese  for  monies  granted  to  them,  what  has 
been  the  effect  of  this  upon  the  interest  and  condition  of  the 
churches  thus  aided  ?  A.  Favorable.  1.  By  preventing  church 
edifices  from  being  alienated  from  the  holy  objects  for  which 
they  were  erected.  2.  By  encouraging  the  individual  members 
to  sustain  the  church  thus  secured  to  its  object.  3.  By  attract- 
ing outside  people  to  the  church  thus  known  to  be  secured  to  its 
object  without  their  being  called  in  to  help  to  pay  its  debt. 
4.  By  being  an  obstacle  as  a  first  mortgage  against  further  mort- 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH, 


231 


gages  of  tlie  church  for  debt.  5.  I  cannot  say  that  I  have  seen 
any  moral,  spiritual,  ecclesiastical,  or  pecuniary  evils  result  from 
such  mortgages  in  my  diocese. 

Q.  Has  Trinity  church  ever,  to  your  knowledge  or  belief, 
sought  to.  exercise  any  influence  over  the  course  or  opinions 
either  of  the  clergy  or^the  parishes  in  your  diocese  ?    A.  No. 

Q.  Has  Trinity  church,  to  your  knowledge  or  belief,  ever 
been  governed  by  party  considerations  in  making  her  grants  to 
churches  in  your  diocese  2    A.  No, 

Q.  Has  Trinity  Church  made  any  grants  for  educational  pur- 
poses in  your  diocese  1  A,  Yes,  a  most  important  and  liberal  one 
to  the  value  of  $50,000,  to  Geneva  college  in  1851.  The  grant 
was  made  when  Geneva  college  was  in  a  disastrous  and  critical 
condition,  occasioned  by  the  State  withdrawing  unsuspectedly, 
under  the  two  year  provision  of  the  new  Constitution  of  1846, 
in  regard  to  appropriations,  her  annual  grant  of  $6,000  to  the 
college,  leaving  nearly  $3,000  unpaid,  (and  still  unpaid)  a  debt 
upon  the  college  trustees,  who  were  without  means  to  pay  the 
professors,  all  of  whom  but  the  president  sought  other  posts, 
and  the  students  diminished  in  number  from  eighty  (the  highest 
number  under  the  State  grant)  to  thirty-seven.  When  the  pros- 
pect of  private  endowment  to  maintain  new  professors  was  dim 
and  gloomy,  and  the  very  continuance  of  the  college  dubious,  in 
this  emergency  Trinity  Church  was  asked  to  endow  the  college, 
which  she  did  in  1851  by  a  grant  of  $50,000,  the  interest  at  six 
per  cent.,  to  be  paid  annually  until  the  principal  is  paid  on  the 
termination  of  the  Astor  lease,  as  I  understand,  on  the  condition 
that  the  college  be  made  in  its  literary  department  a  free  college 
forever,  to  all  students  that  come  to  it,  and  that  it  take  the  name 
Hobart  Free  College,  by  act  of  the  Legislature.  Since  which 
time  the  faculty  have  been  sustained,  and  the  students  liave  in- 
creased from  thirty-seven  to  ninety-six,  a  larger  number  than  it 
ever  had  under  the  State  grant.  And  $22,000  additional  endow- 
ment, viz  :  a  professorship  of  $15,000,  a  fellowship  of  $5,000, 
and  two  scholarships  of  $1,000  each,  and  several  benefactions 
have  been  received  from  private  sources,  not  one  of  which  endow- 


232 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


meiits,  I  am  convinced,  would  have  been  made,  without  this 
grant  from  Trinity  church. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church  has  done 
its  utmost  to  make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corpora- 
tion available  for  the  founding,  or  support,  or  promotion  of 
religious,  charitable,  or  educational  institutions,  or  purposes'? 
A.  As  I  cannot  name  the  wealthy  church  corporation,  or  indi- 
vidual, in  the  city  oi  New-York,  or  elsewhere,  who  I  think  does, 
in  these  respects,  act  with  the  capital  of  the  property  up  to  full 
obligations  to  God,  and  does  the  utmost  with  it;  as  the  question 
covers  the  proceedings  of  the  vestry  before  I  was  born ;  as  I  am 
not  now,  and  never  have  been  acquainted  with  the  exact  condi- 
tion, or  external  arrangement  of  the  property  of  Trinity  church, 
and  therefore,  am  not  qualified  to  give  an  opinion  on  such  a 
point,  I  can  only  say,  that  if  the  present  rector  and  vestry,  who 
know  about  their  property,  declare  that  they  have  done,  or  are 
doing  to  their  utmost  in  these  respects,  I  would  rely  upon  their 
statement,  as  that  of  honorable,  high-minded,  faithful  and  con- 
scientious men,  in  preference  to  my  own  views,  which  must  be 
founded  on  most  imperfect  knowledge,  and  in  opposition  to  the 
opinions  and  judgments  (respecting  the  use  of  Trinity  church 
property,)  of  disappointed  applicants,  eager  expectants,  enthusi- 
asts in  experimental  schemes  of  good,  the  heads  of  church  par- 
ties and  local  enemies,  or  any  other  individuals,  but  partially 
acquainted  with  the  facts  of  the  case,  however  pious,  worthy, 
zealous,  and  highly  esteemed  I  may  regard  them. 

Q.  What,  in  your  judgment,  would  be  the  effect  of  the  repeal 
of  the  law  of  1814 A.  Disastrous  to  the  church,  both  in  New- 
York  city  and  in  the  country  Disastrous  to  the  church  in  New- 
York  city :  1 .  By  engendering,  at  once,  a  long  and  bittei: 
litigation  before  the  courts,  between  Trinity  church  corporation 
and  the  other  churches  in  the  city,  as  the  to  constitutionality 
and  legality  of  the  repeal  of  the  law,  requiring,  at  once,  a  repeal 
of  the  law  of  1784,  or  a  modification  of  it  by  another  law  like 
that  of  1814.  2.  By  dividing  the  churches  outside  of  Trinity 
church  corporation  into  parties  for  and  against  Trinity  church, 
on  all  these  points.    3.  By  splitting  up  every  congregation  into 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


233 


such  parties.    4.  By  making  the  election  of  vestry  for  Trinity 
church  an  annual  occasion  of  unholy  excitement,  collision  and 
contest,  most  injurious  to  the  character,  piety,  prosperity  and 
usefulness  of  the  church.    5.  By  throwing  an  unquencliable 
firebrand  among  the  clergy  and  laity  in  New-York.    6.  By 
raising,  at  once,  such  questions  as  these  to  distract  the  clergy 
and  parishes:  If  the  rector  of  Trinity  church,  be  the  "rector 
of  New-York  and  all  its  inhabitants,"  is  he  not  rector  over 
all  the  churches  under  the  charter  1    Are  not  all  the  other 
rectors  in  New- York,  merely  his  assistants  1     Are  not  all 
the  churclies  in  New-York  merely  chapels  of  Trinity  Church  1 
Is  not  the  law,  authorizing   separate  parishes  in  the  •  city, 
unconstitutional  1    Ought  not  the  charters  of  other  corpora- 
tions to  be  annulled,  as  incompatible  with  the  charter  of 
Trinity;  which  would  then  comprise  all  the  inhabitants  of 
the  city?    The  law,  as  it  stands,  silences  all  such  questions; 
repeal  it,  and  in  my  judgment,  with  such  a  property  at  issue, 
and  in  a  city  containing  2,000  lawyers,  many,  of  the  highest 
eminence,  and  keenest  penetration,  such  like  questions  would 
start  up  at  once  to  produce  clamor,  confusion,  and  conflict,  and 
to  draw  away  thousands  of  dollars  from  charitable,  religious, 
and  educational  institutions  and  purposes,  to  a  most  baneful 
litigation.    The  repeal  of  the  law  would  be  disastrous  to  the 
whole  churcli  of  the  State,  outside  of  the  city.    1 .  By  raising  the 
question,  as  to  the  right  of  dispensing  any  of  this  property  out 
of  the  city,  which  is  denied  by  some,  but  which,  the  present 
corporation  has  admitted,  and  has  temporarily  acted  on.    2.  By 
leading,  almost  necessarily,  to  the  division  of  all  the  property 
among  the  city  churches.    3.  By  thus  cutting  off  all  the  feeble 
country  churches  from  the  benefit  of  this  favor.    4.  By  stopping 
what  has  been  a  stream  of  most  salutary  and  fertilizing  benevo- 
lence to  religious,  charitable,  or  educational  institutions  in  the 
rural  districts.    5.  By  presenting  the  church  in  the  city  of  New- 
York,  clergy  and  laity,  in  a  most  unattractive  and  deplorable  atti- 
tude, as  quarrelsome,  abusive  and  repulsive,  estranged  from  each 
other;  pamphleteering  and  publishing  in  anger,  and  stirring  the 
whole  press  in  New- York,  and  in  the  country,  secular  and  re- 
ligious, into  sharp,  bitter,  and  ceaseless  controversy,  fatal  to  the 


234 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


reputation  of  the  church  for  stability,  q[uietness,  and  peace,  and 
not  promotive  of  the  sanctification  and  salvation  of  men,  but 
subversive  of  sound  law  and  morals. 

Question  by  Mr.  Spencer.  Is  the  opinion  expressed  in  the 
answer  you  have  given,  your  opinion  of  churchmen  generally? 
A.  My  opinion  is  founded  upon  my  knowledge  and  observation 
of  human  nature  generally,  and  of  religious  controversies  and 
church  contentions,  generally. 

Q.  Have  you  looked  over  the  names  of  the  persons  who  testi- 
fied before  the  committee  in  the  city  of  New- York  ?    A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  Are  not  the  laymen  who  testified,  among  the  most  liberal 
to  country  churches  1  A.  I  have  never,  that  I  recollect,  made 
personal  applications  to  any  of  them,  but  some  of  them  bear  a 
high  reputation  for  liberality,  with  other  churchmen  in  New- 
York,  and  I  have  myself,  a  high  personal  regard  for  them.  I 
cannot  answer  as  to  their  liberality  to  country  churches. 


Saturday,  February  21. 

Present :  Senate  Committee  and  Counsel  as  before . 

William  Moore,  called  and  sworn.  Examination  by  counsel 
for  Trinity  Church : — Q.  Where  do  yon  reside  ?  A.  I  reside  in 
Phillipstown,  Putnam  county,  lately  of  the  firm  of  De  Rham  and 
Moore,  of  the  city  of  New-York. 

Q.  Have  you  been  a  vestryman  of  Trinity  Church,  and  for 
■what  time?  A.  I  was  elected  a  vestryman  in  1839,  and  contin- 
•ued  to  be  so  until  last  autumn,  when  I  resigned  in  consequence 
of  my  removal  from  the  city. 

Q.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  standing  committee?  A.  I  was 
for  a  great  many  years,  but  don't  remember  how  long.  I  con- 
tinued in  the  standing  committee  up  to  the  period  of  my  resig- 
nation. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  me  whether  the  list  of  corporators  was  open 
to  the  inspection  oi  any  corporator?  A.  I  believe  it  to  be  so; 
never  heard  of  any  diflBlculty  on  the  subject,  until  an  application 


ON  AFFAIBS  OF  TRIXITT  CHURCH. 


235 


was  made  by  Dr.  Wainwright  for  a  copy  of  the  list.  The  per- 
sons in  the  office,  to  whom  the  application  was  made,  were  doubt- 
ful of  the  propriety  of  giving  copies  of  papers,  and  the  request 
was  referred  to  the  vestry,  which  immediately  granted  the  re- 
quest j  I  think  unanimously. 

Q.  Was  there  any  rule  or  order  of  the  vestry  preventing 
access  to  the  list  of  corporators  ?  A.  Not  to  my  knowledge  or 
belief. 

Q.  Were  the  grants  made  by  the  vestry  made  in  a  partizan 
spirit,  or  with  reference  to  "  high  "  church  or  "  low  "  church 
opinions  1  A.  I  always  endeavored  to  divest  my  mind  as  far  as 
possible  of  every  bias,  in  consulting  on  applications  made  to  the 
vestry,  and  I  believe  my  colleagues  were  equally  conscientious. 

Q.  Is  there  any  foundation  for  the  charge  that  there  was  par- 
tiality in  making  appropriations  to  other  churches  ?  A.  My 
answer  to  the  last  question  will  apply  also  in  a  great  measure 
to  this.  In  so  large  a  body  of  men  as  twenty-three,  the  number 
of  vestry  of  Trinity,  It  is  impossible  that  personal  predilections 
may  not  sometimes  influence  individuals  in  their  votes  on  appli- 
cations. I  believe  it  would  not  be  in  human  nature  to  be  other- 
wise. 

Q.  Was  each  application  discussed  and  decided  upon  its  merits 
and  the  ability  of  the  church,  without  reference  to  "high"  church 
or  "  low    church  opinions  ?    A.  Most  certainly. 

Q.  Is  there  any  ground  for  the  charge  that  the  stipends  have 
been  reduced,  or  have  they  merely  been  transferred  from  the 
wealthier  to  the  more  feeble  churches  1  A.  My  impression  is 
that  the  aggregate  amount  of  the  stipends  is  as  large  now  as  at 
any  time  that  I  was  in  the  vestry.  The  stipends  have  been  re- 
duced and  sometimes  entirely  taken  away  from  richer  congrega- 
tions and  given  to  poorer. 

Q.  Do  you  think  Trinity  Church  has  done  its  utmost  to  make 
the  capital  of  the  property  of  that  corporation  available  for  the 
founding,  support  or  promotion  of  religious,  charitable,  or  edu- 
cational institutions  or  purposes  1   A.  We  have  always  endea- 


236 


EKPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


vored  so  to  do,  and  as  far  as  the  revenue  of  the  church  went,  I 
think  we  succeeded. 

Q.  Is  it  true  that  the  aid  extended  to  feeble  churches  was 
done  i-eluctantly  or  olFensively,  or  with  a  view  to  acquire  any 
power  or  influence  over  the  congregations  or  ministers  of  the 
churches  aided  ?  A.  No.  To  the  first  clause  I  would  say,  on 
the  contrary,  that  it  always  gave  us  great  pleasure  when  we 
could,  to  respond  favorably  to  any  of  the  numerous  applications 
before  us. 

Q  Have  you  considered  the  mortgages  taken  for  grants  to 
churches  as  available  means  ?    A.  No. 

Q.  Were  they  taken  with  a  view  to  the  benefit  of  Trinity 
Church,  or  with  a  view  to  the  protection  of  the  church  thus 
mortgaged!  A.  They  were  taken  with  a  view  to  prevent  that 
property  being  lost  to  the  church  at  large.  In  case  of  a  fore- 
closure of  a  previous  mortgage,  or  some  embarrassment  to  the 
church,  that  this  money  advanced  by  Trinity  should  return  to 
that  church  to  be  distributed  again,  or  returned  to  the  same 
church.  I  never  knew  of  any  case  of  a  foreclosure  of  a  mortgage 
while  I  was  in  the  vestry,  nor  do  I  believe  there  ever  was  one. 

Q.  Have  you  been  one  of  the  committee  to  examine  accounts  1 
A.  Yes,  for  several  successive  years  I  was  chairman  of  said 
committee;  and  for  many  years  it  was  the  practice  of  the  comp- 
troller to  submit  his  bank,  check-book  and  monthly  statement  of 
accounts  to  the  standing  committee. 

Q.  Say  whether  there  was  or  not  free  access  to  all  the  books, 
accounts,  papers,  &c.,  of  the  office  ?  A.  I  never  had  occasion  to 
ask  for  any  book,  account  or  paper,  which  was  not  freely  open 
to  me,  nor  do  I  believe  there  was  any  book,  or  account  or  paper, 
the  examination  of  which  would  have  been  refused. 

Q.  Will  you  explain  the  case  of  St.  Peter's  Church,  referred 
to  in  the  testimony  of  Rev.  Mr.  Beach,  in  pp.  119  and  120  of 
report  of  committee  1  A.  St.  Peter's  Church  was  aided  by 
Trinity  Church  to  the  amount  of  $25,000.  It  was  our  bond  for 
that  amount.    There  was  a  mortgage  given  by  St.  Peter's  to 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


237 


Trinity  Church  on  the  church  property,  to  secure  the  repayment 
of  this,  with  the  bond  of  three  of  the  congregation  as  collateral 
security.    Subsequently  St.  Peter's  church  borrowed  from  Mr. 
Lenox  $22,000,  for  which  they  gave  him  the  bond  of  the  same 
parties,  and  a  second  mortgage  on  the  church.    Trinity  Church 
released  those  who  had  signed  as  security  to  them  either  at  that 
time  or  subsequently,  and  the  mortgage  to  Trinity  Church  then 
became  3h  ordinary  church  mortgage,  on  which  payment  was 
not  expected.    Mr.  Lenox  having  only  a  second  mortgage,  he 
probably  became  uneasy  as  to  his  security,  on  account  of  the 
accumulation  of  interest  on  the  prior  church  mortgage,  and, 
upon  an  application  of  St.  Peter's  church  to  the  vestry,  they 
consented  to  give  Mr.  Lenox's  mortgage  of  $22,000  a  priority  to 
the  extent  T)f  the  capital,  and  one  year's  interest  on  it  over  all 
the  interest  due  or  to  grow  due  on  our  church  mortgage.  That 
arrangement  was  made  in  July,  1844.    Subsequently,  about  18 
months  after  the  vestry  of  St.  Peter's  applied  to  us  to  give  Mr. 
Lenox's  mortgage  a  priority  over  our  mortgage,  or  to  discharge 
our  mortgage.    This  application  was,  after  mature  deliberation 
in  the  standing  committee  and  vestry,  declined,  on  the  ground 
of  the  general  policy  of  the  church  in  taking  these  mortgages 
as  security  for  the  benefit  of  the  church. 

By  the  committee : 

Q.  When  you  took  your  mortgage  on  St.  Peter's  was  it  not  on 
leased  ground  and  not  on  ground  in  fee  ?  A.  My  impression  is, 
and  I  think  that  I  am  right,  that  our  mortgage  was  upon  the 
church  edifice  and  the  lots  upon  which  it  stood,  which  were  in 
fee.  I  think  the  leased  lots  to  which  Mr.  Beach  referred  in  his 
testimony,  were  not  the  lots  included  in  our  mortgage. 

Q.  Was  not  your  mortgage  made  to  extend  over  seven  other 
lots  previously  held  under  lease  ?    A.  I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  If  it  was  so  made,  was  not  your  security  Increased  by  this 
arrangement  ?    A.  Undoubtedly  it  was. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  landed  endowments  made  to  other 
curches  since  1 814,  by  Trinity  Church  ?   A.  I  do  not. 


^8  REPORT  OK    SELECT  COMMITTEE. 

Q.  Are  the  churches  of  the  Good  Shephard  and  St.  John  the 
Baptist,  feeble  cliurches  ?  A.  They  are  ;  the  annual  allowance, 
I  see  by  the  report,  is  $200  each.  The  church  of  St.  John  the 
Baptist  has  been  otherwise  largely  aided  lately  by  Trinity  Church. 

Q.  Is  Grace  church,  Brooklyn,  a  feeble  church  ?  A.  I  should 
hardly  say  they  were  now. 

Q.  Is  St.  Luke's  church,  New-York,  a  feeble  churclf?  A.  It 
is,  it  could  not  be  sustained  but  for  the  aid  of  Trinity. 

Q.  What  is  the  annual  allowance  to  Grace  church,  Brooklyn  ? 
A.  The  church  report  says  it  is  $1,000.  The  explanation  is, 
that  when  Grace  church  was  built  we  granted  them  an  aid  to 
build  the  church  of  SI  5,000, payable  annually  in  sums  of  $1,000; 
and  this  is  not  yet  wholly  paid.  The  $1,000  annually  reported 
is  in  payment  of  it. 

Q.  Is  the  church  of  the  Good  Shepherd  or  St.  John  the  Bap- 
tist more  feeble  churches  than  St.  Luke's  7  A.  It  is  almost 
impossible  for  me  to  say  as  to  the  comparative  feebleness  with- 
out the  statements  of  the  churches,  upon  which  we  pass  upon 
their  applications.  St.  Luke's  church  is  upon  the  property  ot 
Trinity  Church,  and  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  our  ten- 
ants. Trinity  has  set  aside  ground  near  there  for  the  purpose  of 
building  a  chapel,  when  we  can  afford  it ;  until  we  can  do  so  we 
have  telt  ourselves  obliged  to  sustain  St.  Luke's  church  as  the 
church  for  that  district. 

Q.  Is  the  church  of  the  Good  Shepherd  a  more  feeble  church 
th,an  St.  Luke's,  1    A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  What  do  you  pay  annually  to  St.  Luke's,  according  to  the 
report  of  Trinity  church  ?  A.  $2,200.  I  presume  there  is  some 
explanation  that  might  be  given  in  this  case  also. 

Q.  Do  you  understand  there  is  any  legal  obstacle  to  the  col- 
lection of  church  mortgages,  if  the  church  is  so  disposed  ?  A. 
I  believe  there  is  no  legal  obstacle;  but,  if  we  should  attempt 
to  foreclose  one,  it  would  create  such  a  clamor  that  we  would 
never  hear  the  last  of  it. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH.  ^  23d 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  vestry  with  Mr.  Wolf  and  Mr.  Cyrus 
Curtiss'?    A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  consider  themselves 
acting  for  the  Episcopalians,  generally,  in  New-York,  or  acting 
as  such  for  Trinity  church  parish?  A.  For  Trinity  church 
parisli. 

Q.  These  grants  that  you  refer  to,  were  they  made  as  dona- 
tions of  the  property  of  Trinity,  or  as  property  held  in  trust  for 
the  benefit  of  all  the  churches  ?  A.  They  were  made  as  the 
property  of  Trinity  Church. 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  income  of  Trinity  Church  was  greater  in 
1810  or  1812  than  it  is  nowl  A.  We  were  much  richer  then  in 
lands,  but  I  don't  know  about  our  income. 

Q.  While  in  the  vestry,  did  you  know  of  all  expenditures, 
ecclesiastical  or  otherwise  1  A.  There  were  no  expenses  except 
such  as  were  authorized  by  the  vestry,  and  I  had  the  same  op- 
portunity of  knowing  them  as  others. 

Q.  Have  there  been  any  expenses,  to  your  knowledge,  for 
other  than  charitable,  religious  and  benevolent  purposes  1  A. 
None  others  than  such  as  were  necessary  in  the  case  of  so  large 
a  property. 

Examination  by  counsel  for  Trinity  Church. — Gulian  C.  Ver- 
planck,  called  and  sworn  : 

Q.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  and 
how  long  have  you  been  1  A.  I  am  a  member  of  the  Vestry, 
and  have  been,  since  1844,  whether  elected  at  the  annual  elec- 
tion of  1844,  or  to  fill  a  vacancy,  I  do  not  recollect;  about  12 
years. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  a  member  of  Trinity  Church  ? 
A.  I  was  a  corporator  and  pew-holder  as  early  as  1811,  but  have 
not  been,  continuously,  since  that  time. 

Q.  Did  members  of  other  congregations  vote  at  the  vestry 
elctions  of  Trinity  Church,  prior  to  1814?  A.  I  think  not,  for 
the  reasons  which  I  will  state.    At  the  first  election  at  which  I 


240. 


REPOKT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


voted,  which  was  in  1812,  there  was  an  excitement  growing  out 
of  a  parish  question,  the  contest  between  two  eminent  clergy- 
men, Dr.  Hobart  and  Mr.  Jones,  which  brought  out  the  full  vote 
or  nearly  so,  of  the  electors  entitled  to  vote  for  wardens  and 
vestrj',  there  being  two  tickets  for  the  respective  parties.  I 
had  strong  feelings  for  one  of  these,  and  voted  for  one  of  the 
tickets.  I  confidently  believe  that  no  votes  other  than  those  of 
pew  holders  or  communicants  of  Trinity  Church  and  her  chapel 
were  received,  and  that  two  or  three  others  only,  who  were 
pew-holders  or  communicants  in  other  churches,  were  tendered 
and  refused.  This  general  recollection  of  my  own,  has  been 
recalled  and  confirmed,  so  as  to  give  me  great  confidence  in  it, 
by  the  inspection  of  nearly  contemporary  documents  stating  that 
fact. 

Q.  Has  any  suit  ever  been  brought,  or  proceeding  instituted, 
to  establish  the  right  of  a  member  of  any  other  church,  to  vote  at 
the  vestry  elections  of  Trinity  church  1  A.  I  have  never  heard 
of  any  such  suit  or  proceeding,  and  I  think  there  can  have  been 
none,  because  from  my  after  connection  with  tlie  church,  as  a 
vestryman  and  an  occasional  inspector  of  annual  elections,  I 
think  I  must  have  heard  of  such  suit  or  proceeding,  if  any  such 
had  taken  place. 

Q.  Has  any  member  of  any  other  church,  not  a  pew-holder  or 
communicant  in  Trinity  church,  voted  at  the  vestry  elections 

of  Trinity  Church,  since  1814?  A.  I  believe  never,  unless  under 
some  mistake.  I  have  heard  of  a  vote  being  offered,  and  rejected 
on  that  ground ;  I  know  it  from  the  papers  of  the  day. 

Q.  Has  the  act  of  1814  been  acquiesced  in,  by  other  churches 
in  the  city  of  New- York  1  A.  I  think  so,  practically,  as  it  so 
rarely  happened  that  a  vote  was  ever  tendered  on  any  ground, 
but  that  of  being  a  corporator  of  Trinity,  or  a  communicant  or 
pew-holder.  I  recollect  but  one  instance;  there  may  have  been 
a  second,  allowing  for  some  absence  from  the  city  and  country. 

Q,  Have  you  ever  been  a  member  of  the  standing  committee? 
A.  Never. 

Q.  Have  you  had  free  access  to  the  books,  papers  and  accounts 
of  the  office?    A.  Perfectly  so.    Whenever  I  desired  a  book  or 


AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH.  241 

paper  I  was  shown  it,  and  I  frequently  had  and  used  opportuni- 
ties of  examining  important  books  without  asking  the  officers, 
from  the  publicity  with  which  the  minutes  and  other  papers 
were  kept  in  the  office,  * 

Q.  What  induced  you  in  making  such  examinafions;  A. 
Sometimes  general  curiosity  and  a  wish  to  know  and  be  quali- 
fied to  act  upon  the  questions  which  came  before  us.  I  have, 
at  times,  also  examined  more  particularly,  and  even  had  state- 
ments made  for  the  use  of  the  vestry,  on  my  resolution,  for  the 
purpose  of  knowing  the  true  financial  state  of  the  corporation  of 
which  so  many  vague  notions  were  entertained, 

Q.  Were  you  chairman  of  the  Trinity  chapel  building  com- 
mitted A.  I  was  chairman  of  a  committee  of  inquiry  into  the 
matter  of  location,  cost  of  construction ;  and  again  chairman  of 
building  committee,  one  of  which  was  for  the  plan  most  re- 
sembling the  one  adopted;  it  was  a  plan,  the  estimated  cost  of 
which  was  about  $80,000.  This  did  not  include  the  price  of 
land,  and  I  do  not  recollect  whether  it  included  the  organ.  The 
actual  cost  of  the  chapel  is  more  than  $200,000,  exclusive  of 
land.  I  am  not  as  precise  as  I  should  be,  because  there  are  cer- 
tain expenses  of  a  recent  building  of  a  gallery,  which  I  have  not 
seen  and  cannot  now  give. 

Q.  What  was  the  cause  of  the  excess  of  the  cost  of  that 
chapel  above  the  estimates'?  A.  The  chapel  was  not  built  by 
contract,  except  for  particular  objects,  such  as  the  delivery  of 
stone,  but  was  built  under  the  direction  of  an  architect  by  day's 
work.  One  cause,  forming  a  considerable  portion  of  the  extra 
expense,  was  delay  in  building  from  weather  and  non-delivery 
of  material,  kc,  during  which  time  there  was  a  great  and  rapid 
rise  in  labor  and  material.  Another  and  also  large  increase 
arose  from  causes  familiar  to  all  who  have  had  experience  in 
constructing  public  or  private  buildings,  by  which  persons  hav- 
ing the  charge  of  buildings  have  been  tempted  to  enlarge  or  vary 
their  plans.  Having  had  some  personal  experience  on  publi« 
works  as  a  committee-man,  from  the  capitol  at  Washington 
down,  as  well  as  on  private  works,  I  find  it  to  be  very  common. 
A  ihird  cause  is  an  error  in  estimate  in  two  or  three  expensive 

16 


242  ,  REPORT  OF  SELECT  CMMMITTti?, 

items ;  the  cost  of  foreign  stone  for  the  lining  of  the  chapel,  whieh 
much  excieeded  our  estimate.  I  was  very  much  vexed  at  the 
result,  and  regretted  the  excess. 

Q.  What  have  you  to  say  with  regard  to  the  appropriations 
made  to  St.  Luke's  church  I  A.  St.  Luke's  church  was  consid- 
ered, by  myself  and  other  members  of  the  vestry,  in  a  double 
relation.  First,  as  it  stood  to  us,  in  the  relation  of  a  great  land 
holder,  to  provide  for  our  own  tenants,  and  improve  our  own 
property,  among  which  St.  Luke's  stood.  Secondly,  as  a  con- 
siderable, and  poor  congregation.  I  knew  the  character  of  the 
congregation  chiefly  from  an  intimate  friend,  who  has  often 
spoken  of  himself  as  the  only,  or  almost  the  only  person  of 
means,  who  could, or  did  do  anything  for  the  pecuniary  support 
of  the  church.  We  also  looked  to  keeping  the  congregation 
together,  with  the  view  of  transferring  it,  in  some  form  or  other, 
to  the  location  on  Hudson-street  burial  ground,  reserved  for  that 
purpose.  I  have,  on  those  grounds,  voted  cheerfully,  and  ex- 
pressed my  approbation  of  all  such  temporary  allowances  as  were 
thought  necessary  to  keep  up  the  church.  The  precise  amount 
recommended  I  have  had  nothing  to  do  with,  leaving  it  to  the 
judgment  of  the  committee. 

Q.  What  do  you  say  as  to  the  alleged  control  of  the  standing 
committee  1  A  On  some  subjects,  it  is  necessarily  great — as  to 
the  valuation  of  property,  and  the  terms  on  which  property 
should  be  sold — they  being  familiar,  from  long  and  daily  experi- 
ence with  the  value  of  our  property  in  detail.  On  other  points, 
such  as  allowances  or  gifts  to  churches,  the  vestry  form  their 
own  judgment,  and  frequently  refer  matters  back  to  them  for 
reconsideration;  sometimes,  and  in  important  matters,  rejecting 
their  report,  and  making,  or  refusing  grants,  in  opposition  to 
theif  recommendation.  A  case  in  point  has  just  been  referred 
to  us  for  examination.  It  is  that  of  the  church  known  as  St. 
John  the  Baptist,  a  donation  to  which,  the  standing  committee 
had  reported  against,  and  which,  after  full  consideration  and 
debate,  was  granted,  nearly  to  the  amount  asked. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 

• 

Q.  State  whether,  in  your  judgment,  the  funds  of  Trinity 
Church  have  been  judiciously  applied  1  A.  I  believe  they  have 
been  always  applied  with  an  honest  intention,  'With  great  res- 
pect for  the  memories  of  our  predecessors  in  office,  I  think  now, 
and  have  before  very  often  expressed  the  opinion,  that  the  early 
policy  of  Trinity  Church  was  erroneous  in  making  large  endow- 
ments for  churches  which  became  filled  with  wealthy  and  fash- 
ionable people,  and  did  not  provide  for  the  wants  of  the  body  of 
the  Episcopalians  of  the  city  of  New- York.  I  think  the  present 
policy,  founded  on  experience,  is  far  wiser ;  by  the  present 
policy  T  mean  aid  to  poorer  congregations  in  New-York  and 
elsewhere,  in  the  form  of  stipends  or  money  grants,  and  espe- 
cially in  providing  for  the  religious  or  other  education  of  the 
poor  in  our  own  churches.  I  will  also  add  the  accommodation 
of  many  others,  who  cannot  literally  be  called  poor  ;  young 
clerks,  for  instance,  who  could  not  provide  themselves  with 
hired  pews. 

Q.  Is  it  true  that  the  grants  of  Trinity  Church  have  been 
made  in  a  partial  or  parti zan  spirit,  as  regards  "high"  church 
or  *']ow"  church  views?  A.  I  have  never  observed  any 
evidence  of  it,  and  have  never  felt  it  myself  in  any  vote,  I  can 
say  with  a  clear  conscience. 

Q  What  have  you  to  say  on  the  subject  of  free  churches'? 
A.  I  have  taken  great  interest  in  them  ;  was  among  the  foun- 
ders of  the  City  Mission,  a  donor  and  occasionally  a  solicitor  of 
donations.  I  have  been  Vice  President  of  the  City  Mission,  and 
understand  I  now  am.  J  have  been  disappointed  in  the  results 
of  purely  free  churches,  which  I  fear  can  hardly  get  along  with- 
out an  endowment.  I  think  the  best  and  largest  example  of  a 
practical  without  a  nominal  free  church,  is  the  parish  church  of 
Trinity.  In  this  there  are  a  limited  number  of  pew-holders 
mixed  with  a  much  larger  body,  forming  a  large  congregation, 
who  need  free  accommodations.  It  is  practically  a  free  church, 
because  with  congregations  of  from  five  hundred  to  fifteen  hun- 
dred, I  perceived  just  before  I  left  town,  from  an  accidental 
inspection  of  the  list  of  pews,  that  the  actual  receipts  from  the 
pews  of  Trinity,  for  the  year  ending  in  May,  1856,  was  $157. 


244  REPORT  OF    SELECT  COMMITTEE. 

At  St.  Paul's  the  sum  collected  was  $280,  for  the  same  period. 
I  will  add  that  my  personal  knowledge  is  of  Trinity,  where  I 
attend  with  considerable  regularity  about  half  the  year.  The 
operation  of  St.  Paul's  resembles  that  of  Trinity. 

Q.  What  have  you  to  say  as  to  the  value  of  property  of  Trinity 
church,  and  the  mode  of  valuation  in  its  report  ?  A.  I  had  no 
hand  in  making  out  the  report  made  to  the  Senate  of  the  value 
of  their  property,  but  I  think  that  no  other  mode  of  estimation 
than  that  of  the  sworn  assessors  could  have  been  made  and 
agreed  upon.  This  arises,  in  my  judgment,  from  the  church 
interest  being  a  reversionary  property,  falling  in  at  different  pe- 
riods, with  comparatively  a  small  income.  As  to  the  most  valu- 
able and  saleable  property  in  the  lower  part  of  the  city,  which 
has  recently  risen,  even  since  the  making  of  the  report,  the  high 
prices  chiefly  for  commercial  purposes,  my  own  experience  and 
observation  convince  me  that  it  is  impossible  to  calculate  with 
any  reasonable  ground  of  reliance  as  to  its  reversionary  value 
for  six,  eight  and  ten  years,  and  longer  periods  ahead.  I  speak 
both  from  observation  and  experience  on  this  subject.  I  have 
been  a  member  of  monied  institutions,  which  lend  on  mortgage, 
in  the  city  of  New-York ;  such  as  the  Life  and  Trust  Company. 
I  have  observed  the  great  fluctuations  and  fall  of  value  in  parts 
of  the  city,  such  as  Pearl-street,  Hanover  Square.  I  have  ex- 
amined many  bonds  and  mortgages  of  this  character  while  in- 
quiring into  the  value  of  property.  I  have  myself  had  the 
management  and  control  of  property  in  Stone-street,  Pine-street, 
&c.,  which  in  1835-36,  was  of  great  value,  but  has  now  fallen 
one-half,  or  nearly  one-half  its  value  at  that  time,  owing  to  the 
transition  of  certain  branches  of  commercial  business  from  that 
locality  to  Broadway,  and  the  streets  adjoining  it.  I  could  not, 
therefore,  myself,  as  the  same  occurrence  may  take  place,  esti- 
mate a  high  reversionary  value  ten  or  fifteen  years  hence,  from 
present  prices.  The  Astor  lease,  forming  a  large  portion  of  the 
property  of  the  church,  falling  in  in  ten  years,  is  a  mere  rever- 
sionary property,  producing,  at  present,  only  |269  per  anum. 
Such  property,  when  offered  in  large  amounts  at  a  time,  would 
not,  probably,  command  the  bids  or  offers  of  any  but  capitalists 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


245 


expecting  to  purchase  at  a  low  rate,  and  except  under  very  favo- 
rable circumstances,  would  hardly  bring  its  reversionary  value, 
calculated  on  the  assessed  value,  and  perhaps  not  so  much.  I 
form  that  judgment  with  the  full  knowledge  that  where  the  pro- 
perty is  not  encumbered  with  a  lease,  it  might  sell  for  more  than 
the  assessed  value.  For  these  reasons,  I  think  the  assessed 
value  the  only  one  that  the  church  could  properly  give,  or  the 
vestry  have  properly  agreed  upon, 

7  o'clock,  P  M. 

Gulian  C.  Verplanck's  testimony  continued. 

<i.  Will  you  state  what  appropriations  have  been  made  by 
Trinity  Church  to  institutions  of  charity  in  addition  to  those 
that  have  been  already  named  1  A.  I  may  possibly  not  know  all 
that  have  been  named,  but  I  understand  no  mention  has  been 
made  of  the  annual  appropriation  to  the  church  of  the  Deaf 
Mutes,  which  consists  of  the  whole  annual  rent  of  the  church 
used,  and  also  a  stipend,  I  believe,  of  $300  or  more.  I  think  the 
rent  is  $500.  Another  stipend  is  a  charity  rather  than  a  church 
donation,  to  a  minister,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cook,  the  German  mission- 
ary at  Ward's  island  and  in  the  city  among  German  emigrants, 
I  think  the  allowance  is  $300.  I  suppose  I  may  add,  as  there 
has  been  an  allusion  to  it  in  a  previous  question,  that  he  is  a  '*  low" 
churchman;  and  I  never  have  known  of  any  objection  being  made 
to  the  motion  I  make  every  year  for  the  appropriation.  A  similar 
annual  donation,  which  I  mention  as  falling  within  my  own 
knowledge  as  emigrant  commissioner,  is  that  of  Rev.  Mr.  Winslow  ^ 
Protestant  chaplain  for  the  Quarantine  hospital,  given  for  other 
services^  to  emigrants  landing  at  Castle  Garden,  in  relation  to 
their  concerns  both  temporal  and  spiritual.  St.  Luke's  hospital 
received  substantially  from  Trinity  church  the  grounds  on  which 
the  hospital  is  built,  now  of  great  value,  which  took  effect  within 
a  year  or  two.  It  was  in  this  way :  Trinity  Church  had  some 
years  ago  leased  to  the  corporation  of  the  city  a  piece  or  square 
of  ground  to  be  used  as  a  market,  and  on  that  condition,  at  th« 
foot  of  Duane-street.  A  hospital  and  church  for  British  emigrants 
called  the  church  and  hospital  of  St.  George  the  Martyr,  had 


246 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


been  projected  and  in  part  carried  into  effect ;  expecting  to  collect 
sufficient  funds  here  and  in  England,  tliey  wanted  a  piece  of 
ground,  spacious  and  convenient  enough  for  a  hospital  building, 
they  applied  to  Trinity  for  a  grant  for  this  purpose.  Trinity  had 
no  lands  suitable  for  it,  and  it  was  doubted  whether  they  had 
present  means  to  enable  them  to  buy  ;  about  the  same  time,  how- 
ever, the  market  at  the  foot  of  Duane-street  having  been  given  up, 
the  question  was  presented  whether  we  had  not  the  right  to  re- 
enter and  claim  our  property  at  the  foot  of  Duane-street.  The 
vestry  were  advised  that  they  could^.do  so,  and  I  suppose  cor- 
rectly, but  some  friends  of  the  proposed  hospital  suggested  that 
the  unpleasantness  of  a  suit  against  the  corporation  would  be 
avoided,  and  a  great  good  obtained  by  negociation,  if  the  cor- 
poration would  grant  a  certain  suitable  location  to  that  hospital, 
high  up  on  the  Fifth-avenue,  the  vestry  releasing  to  the  city 
corporation  their  rights  in  the  Duane-street  lot,  which  the  city 
authorities  were  desirous  of  selling  for  a  large  amount  to  the 
Erie  railroad.  This  was  carried  into  effect,  the  vestry  relin- 
quishing, for  that  purpose,  their  right  to  a  property  of  great 
value,  worth  perhaps  $40,000.  The  institution  of  St  George 
the  Martyr,  failing  for  some  reason,  St.  Luke's  was  substituted 
in  its  place,  and  the  property  was  transferred  to  St.  Luke's  hos- 
pital. Trinity  Church  formally  joining  therein.  I  consider  that 
the  property  was  therefore  obtained  by  St.  Luke's  hospital  by 
means  of  a  grant  from  Trinity  Church  ;  the  title  was  obtained 
from  the  corporation  of  New- York,  the  real  consideration 
thereof  being  the  land  released  by  Trinity  Church,  and  sold  for 
a  large  sum  to  the  Erie  railroad.  Our  last  assent  to  the  trans- 
fer to  St.  Luke's  was  given  within  a  few  years  past. 

Q.  State  whether  there  is  any  order  of  the  vestry  prohibiting 
free  access  to  the  list  of  corporators  1  A.  There  is  no  order  to 
that  effect ;  the  superior  officers  have  never  refused  to  my  know- 
ledge any  one.  I  cannot  say  what  the  clerks  may  have  done. 
The  books  lie  In  places,  open  all  day  at  least,  and  the  one  con- 
taining the  pew-holder  corporators  is  in  the  outer  office,  where 
pfew  rents  are  collected,  and  frequently  examined  by  any  one,  I 
think,  who  has  the  curiosity.    The  book  containing  the  list  of 


t)N  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


247- 


©ommunicant  corporators  is  kept  in  an  inner  office  on  an  open 
desk;  I  never  knew  the  examination  of  it  refused. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  of  the  old  Episcopal  church 
charters  in  this  State,  granted  in  the  same  terms  as  that  of  Trinity 
Church  ?  A.  The  old  form  of  holding  church  property  before 
the  revolution,  was  the  rector,  wardens,  and  inhabitants  of  the 
town,  or  city  in  which  it  was,  in  communion  of  tlie  church  of 
England.  Several  of  these  were  altered  to  conform  to  the  new 
state  of  things  after  the  revolution,  retaining  their  own  name, 
except  modified  as  to  the  church  of  England.  Trinity  Church 
was,  by  a  special  act;  St.  Peter's,  Albany,  was  so  modified;  the 
church  with  which  I  have  been  long  connected,  in  Fishkill, 
Dutchess  county,  holds  its  burial  ground  and  buildings  under  a 
title  in  the  same  form.  It  reincorporated  itself  under  a  general 
act,  passed  in  1797,  and  its  corporate  title  Is,  "  the  rector,  war- 
dens and  inhabitants  of  Fishkill,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church,"  There  are  two  other  Episcopal  churches, 
which  have  been  established  for  more  than  twenty  years,  in  the 
same  township,  but  tliey  have  never  claimed  either  the  property 
or  the  right  to  vote. 

By  the  committee.— Q.  If  the  lots  to  St.  Luke's  hospital  were 
given,  or  considered  by  the  church  their  property  to  give,  why 
were  they  omitted  in  their  report  made  in  1856?  A.  I  presume 
for  the  reasons  already  stated,  that  they  were  not  directly  given, 
but  substantially  so,  and  therefore,  requiring  a  long  explanation, 
and  deeming  it  impossible  to  state  it  briefly  in  an  account  or 
abstract. 

Q,  Did  not  the  city  corporation  insist  that  Trinity  had  no 
right  to  those  Duane-street  lots  ?  A,  I  do  not  know  that  they 
ever  insisted :  but  we  were  legally  advised  that  our  right  of  re- 
entry was  perfect;  and  those  who  represented  the  corporation 
were  willing  to  make  the  arrangement  I  have  mentioned,  and  to 
receive  our  formal  release, 

Q.  Did  the  city  corporation  dispute  your  right  to  the  lots? 
A.  It  may^have  been  verbally  denied  by  counsel  or  officers,  but. 


248 


REPORT  OF  SEtECT  COMMITTEE 


they  were  sufficiently  satisfied  of  our  right  to  give  a  valuable? 
property  for  the  release  of  our  right,  as  we  requested. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  look  at  the  book  ol  corporators  kept  in  the 
inner  office  1  A.  Yes,  I  have  looked  at  it  in  order  to  see  if  per- 
sons were  not  entitled  to  be  entered  as  corporators  who  wer© 
omitted  through  their  own  negligence  or  indifference,  and  I  be- 
lieve there  were  many  such. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  look  at  the  cash  book  or  book  of  original 
entries'?  A.  I  have  not,  never  having  had  occasion  to  do  so,, 
and  never  having  audited  any  accounts"  except  those  of  the 
ehapel  building. 

Q.  Did  you,  as  a  member  ot  the  vestry,  know  and  approve  of 
the  form  of  the  lease  of  pews  in  Trinity  chapel,  at  its  opening  1 
A.  I  did  know  of  it,  and  did  not  approve  of  it,  because  I 
considered  it  a  measure  of  over  prudence,  calculated  to  expose 
us  to  misrepresentation  and  perhaps  to  give  offence.  The  motive 
ol  those,  however,  who  carried  it  through,  was  that  of  precau- 
tionary prudence  against  the  intrusion  of  a  body  of  pew-holders 
who  had  no  sympathies  with  us  or  any  other  church.  It  was 
recommended  by  a  committee  and  approved  by  a  majority  of  the 
vestry.  It  was  repealed  before  it  could  have  any  practical 
effect 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  churches  set  off  from  Trinity  Church 
since  1814'?   A.  None  have  been. 

Q.  Do  you  find  any  difficulty  in  getting  at  the  value  of  your 
property  when  you  sell  or  lease  1  A.  We  are  happily  in  a  situ- 
ation not  to  be  obliged  to  sell  or  lease  until  we  get  offers,  and  it 
is  then  a  subject  of  negotiation  with  our  officers  or  committees, 
of  which  I  am  not  one. 

Q.  Is  there  any  difficulty  in  getting  at  the  fair  value  of  your 
property,  when  it  is  in  a  condition  to  sell  or  to  lease  1  A.  When 
the  lease  has  expired  there  is  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  appropriations  by  Trinity  Church, 
for  other  than  charitable,  religious  or  educational  purposes  1 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


249 


A.  In  the  management  of  so  large  a  property,  there  may  be 
many  miscellaneous  purposes  which  I  cannot  mention  in  detail, 
for  instance;  patriotic  purposes,  of  which  I  mention  three  in- 
stances, involving  some  expense,  not  discreditable  to  the  church. 
In  Trinity  churchyard  were  interred  the  remains  of  the  late 
gallant  Capt.  Lawrence,  whose  memory  is  perpetuated  by  his 
last  words,  "  Don't  give  up  the  ship."  A  monument  had  been 
erected  to  his  memory,  at  public  expense,  badly  built,  though 
well  meant,  and  for  torty  years  it  had  fallen  into  decay.  It  was 
rebuilt  at  the  expense  of  the  chui-ch,  in  suitable  and  permanent 
style,  retaining  its  former  inscription.  A  similar  in>tance  within 
my  memory,  was  the  restoring  and  repairing  of  the  monument, 
covering  the  remains  of  Alexander  Hamilton.  A  third  instance 
is  the  monument  now  erecting,  on  the  remains  of  revolutionary 
soldiers,  buried  in  the  western  part  of  Trinity  churchyard. 
The  monument  of  Gen.  Montgomery  in  front  of  St.  Paul's,  and 
in  the  church,  has  been  repaired  and  improved.  I  presume  that 
the  erecting  of  a  monument,  creditable  as  a  work  of  art,  to  the 
late  Eishof)  Hobart,  can  hardly  be  considered  as  coming  within 
the  term,  charitable,  or  religious.  There  are  others  in  the 
management  of  the  real  estate,  which  any  other  large  landholder 
would  pay. 

By  the  counsel  for  Trinity  Church  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  improper  appropriation  of  the  funds 
of  the  church?    A.  I  know  of  none  for  improper  purposes. 

Q.  Have  any  churches  offered  to  be  set  off  from  Trinity,  since 
1814?    A.  None. 

The  committee,  by  request,  put  the  following  question  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  or  have  you  been  informed,  whether  Trinity 
Church  has  recently  had  any  person  employed  as  counsel  or 
otherwise,  belonging  or  attached  to  the  judicial,  executive  or 
legislative  department  of  the  State  government?  A  I  do  not 
know  of  anv;  and  I  add,  that  from  my  position  on  committees 
of  a  legal  and  executive  character  other  than  the  financial  and 
standing  committee,  I  must  have  known  if  any  such  person  had 
been  employed  now  or  for  some  years  past;  and  I  therefore  say, 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


ihat  the  church  has  employed  no  person  now  in  the  judicial,  ex- 
ecutive or  legislative  department.  I  was  recently  asked,  whether 
a  certain  person  coming  within  that  description  had  been  re- 
tained, and  I  at  once  answered,  "  No."  Except  those  who  now 
appear  before  you  professionally  on  this  examination,  there  is  no 
person  employed  in  this  matter  except  Mr.  De  Zeng,  who  openly 
appears  as  our  agent. 

Adjourned  to  10  A.  M.,  Monday. 

Monday^  February  23,  1857. 
Present :  Senate  committee.     Messrs.  Spencer,  Noxon  and 
Ramsey;  [t'ov  Trinity  Church,  Judge  Parker  and  0.  Meads,  Esq., 
Counsel. 

Gen.  John  Jl.  Dis,  called  and  sworn.  Examined  by  counsel 
for  Trinity  Church : — Q.  Will  you  state  generally  the  facts 
within  your  knowledge  in  regard  to  the  charges  made  against 
the  vestry  <;1  Trinity  Church  ?  A.  About  ten  day  ago  I  was 
subpoenaed  to  attend  the  committee  as  a  witness  ;  being  occu- 
pied with  important  business,  and  fearing  I  should  be  unable  to 
attend  before  tlie  labors  of  the  committee  were  closed,  I  prepar- 
ed a  communication  addressed  to  the  chairman  of  the  committee, 
and  >er.t  it  by  Mr.  Livingston,  last  week.  The  session  of  the 
committee  having  been  extended  beyond  my  expectations  at  that 
time,  I  thought  it  proper  to  appear  before  them  in  person.  I 
have  this  communication  with  me,  and  if  the  committee  will 
permit  me  to  read  it,  I  think  it  will  save  them  a  good  deal  of 
,  time  in  preparing  questions,  and  myself  a  good  deal  of  incon- 
venience in  writing  out  answers. 

The  committee  assented  to  the  reading  of  the  communication 
in  answer  to  the  foregoing  question,  which  is  as  follows : 

I  have  just  seen  and  read  the  report  made  to  the  Senate  on  the 
29th  ult.,  by  the  committee  of  which  you  are  chairman,  together 
■with  the  testimony  appended  thereto  ;  and  as  there  aie  imputa- 
tions therein  derogatory  to  the  character  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity 
Church,  of  whom  I  am  one,  both  as  regards  their  fairness  and 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TKINITY  CHURCH, 


251 


their  discreetness  in  the  execution  of  their  trust,  I  ask  leave  to 
submit  to  tlie  committee  the  following  statement :  Business  of  a 
very  urgent  nature,  affecting  the  interests  of  others,  which  I 
should  be  inexcusable  for  neglecting,  prevents  me  from  visiting- 
Albany.  I  should  otherwise  have  appeared  before  the  commit- 
tee, and  asked  them  to  take  my  teslimony  orally,  instead  of  soli- 
citing their  indulgence  so  far  as  to  allow  me  to  present  it  in  the 
form  of  a  written  communication. 

I  was  appointed  a  vestryman  in  the  autumn  of  1849,  and  have 
served  in  that  capacity  to  the  present  time,  with  the  exception 
often  months  in  1854- and  1855,  during  which  I  was  absent  from 
the  country,  and  occasional  temporary  absences  from  the  State 
at  other  times.  I  have  attended  with  a  good  deal  of  regularity 
the  meetings  of  the  vestry,  and  have  taken  a  somewhat  active 
pai-t  in  its  proceedings. 

I  do  not  propose  to  trouble  the  committee  with  any  discussion 
of  the  legal  rights  of  the  corporation  under  the  original  grants, 
by  which  it  holds  its  property,  or  the  legislative  enactments  by 
which  its  corporate  powers  have  been  confirmed  or  enlarged. 
Nor  do  I  intend  to  offer  to  the  committee  any  opinion  with  re- 
gard to  the  true  interpretation  of  those  enactments  or  grants. 
The  sole  object  of  this  statement,  which  is  made  on  my  own 
responsibility,  is  to  present  such  explanations  as  seem  to  me 
necessary  to  exonerate  myself  and  my  associates  from  charges 
which  have  been  brought  against  us  by  some  of  the  witnesses, 
and  which  do  us,  as  I  conceive,  great  injustice. 

I  beg  leave  to  say  further,  with  perfect  respect  for  the  com- 
mittee, and  the  body  by  which  it  was  appointed,  that  in  pre- 
senting this  statement  I  have  not  overlooked  the  vital  relation 
which  an  inquiry  instituted  by  one  branch  of  the  Legislature, 
through  the  action  of  a  committee,  into  the  administration  of 
the  internal  affairs  of  a  religious  corporation,  bears  to  the  rights 
of  every  ecclesiastical  body  in  the  State.  I  do  not  admit  the 
existence  of  such  an  authority  as  has  been  exercised  in  regard 
to  the  body  with  which  I  am  connected,  more  especially  when 
carried  so  far  as  to  solicit  ex  parte  opinions  concerning  the 
motives  under  which  individuals  may  have  been  supposed  to 


253 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE. 


act.  And  I  cannot  bat  think,  when  the  question  is  deliberately 
considered,  that  it  will  be  found  to  possess  a  most  important 
bearing  upon  the  rights  of  conscience,  which  it  was  one  of  the 
leading  objects  of  the  Constitution  to  secure;  a  question'well 
worthy,  under  this  aspect,  of  the  most  serious  public  regard. 
If  I  have  chosen  to  meet,  with  a  reservation  of  rights,  which  I 
deem  inviolable,  the  imputations  cast  upon  me  and  my  asso- 
ciates, instead  of  passing  them  by  in  silence,  it  is  in  order  that 
the  minds  of  the  committee,  the  Legislature,  and  the  community 
may  not  be  misled  by  the  testimony  in  which  those  imputations 
are  contained. 

Soon  after  my  connexion  with  the  vestry  commenced,  my 
attention  was  attracted  to  the  financial  condition  of  the  corpo- 
ration, which  seemed  to  me  very  unsatisfactory  Its  debt 
amounted  to  nearly  half  a  million  of  dollars,  and  by  reason  of 
the  large  donations  it  was  in  the  habit  of  making  to  other- 
churches  its  revenue  had  become  inadequate  to  its  expenditures, 
and  the  annual  deficits  were  made  up  by  a  sale  of  property.  I 
regarded  this  practice,  though  foundtd  upon  a  generous  con- 
sideration for  the  wants  of  other  parishes,  and  a  desire  to  pro- 
mote the  advancement  of  the  interests  of  the  Episcopal  church 
in  the  city  and  the  State,  as  opposed  to  all  sound  principles  of 
finance.  No  fund  or  endowment  can  long  withstand  a  regular 
consumption  of  its  principal.  Encumbered  as  the  church  pro- 
perty was  by  leases,  it  could  rarely  be  sold  in  any  considerable 
parcels,  without  serious  sacrifice;  and  it  was  my  opinion  that 
the  contributions  of  the  church,  instead  of  being  enlarged,  should 
be  curtailed,  that  its  debts  should  not  be  increased,  that  its  ex- 
penditures should,  if  possible,  be  brought  within  its  income,  and 
tliat  its  property  should,  as  a  general  rule,  be  preserved  until 
the  expiration  of  its  leases,  when  it  could  be  sold  without  loss; 
thus  leaving  the  church  in  condition  to  carry  out  with  vigor  and 
success  the  great  plan  of  ministration,  which  seemed  to  me  to  be 
clearly  marked  out  by  changes  in  progress  in  tlie  distribution  of  » 
business  and  population  throughout  the  city. 

In  accordance  with  these  views,  when  it  was  decided  to  build 
a  chapel  in  the  upper  part  of  the  city,  in  order  to  preserve  to 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


253 


the  church  its  ancient  parishioners,  who  had  removed  in  large 
numbers  from  the  neighborhood  of  Trinity  church,  and  St. 
Paul's,  and  St.  John's,  I  introduced  a  resolution  providing  that 
the  corporate  debt  should  never  exceed  the  sum  of  two  hundred 
and  fifty-thousand  dollars  beyond  the  amount  of  its  bonds  and 
mortgages,  exclusive  of  those  given  by  churches.  The  latter 
were  excepted  for  the  reason  that  they  have  never  been  regarded 
as  an  available  resource.  No  interest  is  collected  on  them,  and 
they  are,  in  fact,  held  by  the  corporation  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing,  in  case  of  emergency,  the  property  to  which  they 
attach,  from  being  devoted  to  secular  uses.  Tlie  resolution  re- 
ferred to,  after  being  amended  so  as  to  increase  the  limit  of  the 
debt  to  three  hundred  thousand  dollars,  was  adopted. 

It  is  due  to  entire  frankness  to  say,  that  I  was  opposed  to  the 
construction  of  Trinity  chapel,  believing  the  private  wealth  of 
the  district,  for  which  its  ministrations  were  designed,  suffi- 
cient to  furnish  them  without  the  aid  of  Trinity  church.  At 
the  same  time,  there  were  arguments  in  favor  of  the  measure, 
on  the  score  of  justice  and  practical  usefulness,  which  it  was 
not  easy  to  answer,  and  solicitations  from  old  and  faithful  friends 
of  the  church,  who  had  removed  to  the  upper  part  of  the  city, 
too  earnest  and  persuasive  to  be  resisted  by  the  vestry,  many  of 
whom  had  been  their  associates  from  an  early  period  in  life,  and 
who  were  naturally  reluctant  to  dissolve  the  connection  as  they 
approached  its  close. 

The  measure  baring  been  resolved  on,  the  vestry  adopted  a 
plan,  which  the  architect  estimated  to  cost  forty  thousand  dol- 
lars. I  urged  its  adoption,  on  the  ground  of  its  comparatively 
small  cost,  and  I  particularly  pressed  on  the  vestry  the  conside- 
ration that  in  the  principal  parish  church  enough  had  been  done 
by  them  for  the  embellishment  of  the  architecture  of  the  city. 
At  a  subsequent  meeting,  a  majority  of  the  vestry,  deeming  the 
proposed  edifice  too  small,  or  perhaps  too  plain  for  the  position 
it  was  to  occupy,  adopted  another  plan,  estimated  by  the  archi- 
tect to  cost  seventy  nine  thousand  dollars.  It  was  never  intended 
by  the  vestry  to  exceed  that  sum.    But  those  who  have  had  any 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


experience  in  building  cliurclaes,  know  not  only  how  little  confi- 
dence is  to  be  placed  in  such  estimates,  but  how  difficult  it  is  to 
adhere  to  original  designs;  and  they  will  be  disposed  to  consider 
the  vestry,  who  ultimately  found  themselves  involved,  greatly 
to  their  disappointment  and  annoyance,  in  an  expenditure  of 
two  hundred  and  tiiirty  thousand  dollars,  for  the  chapel  and 
site,  as  objects  of  sympathy  rather  than  censure. 

This  unlooked  for  expenditure,  and  the  continued  annual 
contributions  to  other  parishes,  which  the  vestry  were  unwilling 
to  abridge,  have  carried  the  corporate  debt  up  to  the  enormous 
sum  of  six  hundred  and  sixty-eight  thousand  dollars,  exceeding, 
by  the  sum  of  $469,000,  its  available  bonds  and  mortgages. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  greater  part  of  the  city  below  Cham- 
bers-street is  devoted  to  purposes  of  business,  and  that  private 
dwellings  have  given  place  to  stores  and  warehouses.  The 
wealthy  portion  of  the  population  has  gone  to  the  upper  dis- 
tricts, and  most  of  the  churches  of  all  denominations  have 
followed  them.  The  North  Dutch,  which  is  still  engaged  in 
useful  spiritual  labors  in  the  neighborhood  of  St.  Paul's;  the 
Methodist  church  in  John-street,  unhappily  rent  by  internal 
strife;  and  St.  Peter's,  a  Roman  Catholic  church  on  Barclay- 
street,  still  maintain  their  ground.  With  these  exceptions,  Trinity 
church,  St.  Paxil's,  and  the  church  in  Beekman-street,  formerly 
St.  George's,  purchased  and  now  entirely  supported  by  Trinity, 
stand  alone  in  this  great  deserted  field  of  labor.  The  same  pro- 
cess is  going  on'' above  Chambers-street;  and  in  a  few  years  there 
will,  in  all  probability,  be  no  churches  below  Canal-street  but 
those  of  Trinity  parish.  Notwithstanding  this  exodus  of  wealth, 
a  vast  population,  the  inhabitants,  in  great  part,  of  alleys,  gar- 
rets and  cellars,  estimated  to  exceed  one  hundred  and  twenty 
thousand  souls,  occupy  the  field  it  has  abandoned;  and  if  Trinity 
church  had  followed  the  same  instincts,  which  have  drawn  ofi" 
the  other  religious  societies  of  the  city  to  its  more  attractive 
districts,  if  she  also  had  abandoned  to  their  fate  the  poor  and 
necessitous,  whom  wealth  and  fashion  have  bequeathed  to  her, 
the  lower  part  of  the  city  would  have  presented  an  example  of 
religious  destituion  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  Christian 
civilization. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


255 


It  was  in  view  of  this  great  change  in  the  condition  of  the 
population  of  the  city  that  I  introduced  into  the  vestry  on  the 
10th  April,  1851,  the  following  resolutions  : 

Resolved,  That  the  standing  committee  be  instructed  to  report 
a  plan  by  which  the  expenditures  of  the  corporation  shall  be 
limited  to  its  income. 

Resolved,  That  the  said  committee  be  instructed  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  making  the  seats  in  Trinity  Church  and 
in  St.  Paul's  and  St.  John's  chapels  free. 

Resolved,  That  the  said  committee  be  instructed  to  inquire  into 
the  expediency  of  establishing  free  schools  in  connexion  with 
Trinity  Church  and  its  chapels. 

Resolved,  That  the  said  committee  be  instructed  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  devoting  the  funds  of  the  corporation,  as 
far  as  may  be  practicable,  after  making  provision  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  new  chapel  in  25th-street,  to  the  education  and  reli- 
gious instruction  of  the  poor  of  the  city. 

The  last  resolution,  as  originally  presented,  was  confined  to 
the  poor  of  the  city  below  Canal-street,  and,  on  the  suggestion  of 
a  member  of  the  vestry,  it  was,  in  view  of  future  contingen- 
cies, amended  so  as  to  embrace  the  whole  city. 

This  is  the  plan  which,  nearly  four  years  ago,  I  deemed  it  my 
duty  to  bring  before  the  vestry.  It  was  supported  by  a  some- 
what labored  argument,  which  was  not  committed  to  paper,  and 
which  I  will  not  tax  the  patience  of  the  committee  by  attempt- 
ing to  recall  to  reraembraee.  I  trust,  indeed,  that  no  such  ex- 
position is  necessary,  and  that  the  resolutions  sufficiently 
explain  their  purpose.  Their  design  was  to  rescue  the  lower 
part  of  the  city — that  portion  which  has  not  only  an  im- 
mense body  of  resident  poor,  but  which  receives  into  its 
bosom  the  greater  part  of  the  destitute,  who  seek  a  refuge  here 
from  hardships  in  other  countries — to  rescue  this  combined  mass 
of  permanent  and  temporary  indigence  from  the  utter  spiritual 
abandonment  with  which  it  was  threatened  by  the  removal  of 
those  to  whose  wealth  and  liberality  it  had  been  accustomed  to 


2^6 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


look  for  sympathy  and  pecuniary  aid,  to  more  congenial  dis- 
tricts. The  plan  comprehended  not  only  the  spiritual  instruc- 
tion of  the  adult  inhabitants  of  this  deserted  district — once  the 
seat  of  nearly  all  the  wealth  ot  the  city — but  the  education  of 
their  children,  and,  to  the  extent  of  the  means  of  the  corpora- 
tion, a  ministration  to  their  temp  )ral  wants.  Trinity  Church, 
with  its  endowments,  fortunately  growing  more  valuable  with 
the  progress  of  the  city,  was  to  stand  in  the  place  of  the  indi- 
vidual opulence,  which  has  fled  from  a  district  where  its  tastes 
cculd  no  longer  find  suitable  fields  for  indulgence,  and  estab- 
lished itself  in  others,  where  it  has  rivaled  Genoa  in  its  streets 
ol  palaces,  and  where  in  all  its  appointments  and  manifestations 
of  indoor  and  outdoor  life,  there  is  a  concentration  of  refine- 
ment, luxury  and  splendor  unequalled,  excepting  by  a  few  of 
the  great  capitals  of  Europe. 

It  is  possible  that  I  may  have  looked  upon  this  plan  with  that 
undue  partiality  which  individuals  are  apt  to  feel  for  suggestions 
originating  with  themselves.  But  it  has  seemed  to  me  to  have 
been  among  the  designs  of  Providence  that  Trinity  Church 
should  have  been  planted  in  this  great  district,  ready  with  her 
ample  endowments,  to  make  provision,  when  the  emergency 
should  arrive,  for  those  whom  individual  wealth  has  left  upon 
her  hands.  I  hold  this  to  be  the  great  mission  of  Trinity  Church, 
and  I  have  pressed  on  the  vestry,  on  all  proper  occasions,  the 
duty  of  preparing  for  it,  and  of  commencing  the  work  with  the 
utmost  diligence.  Though  the  plan  has  not  been  formally 
adopted,  it  has  been  practically  acted  on;  and  it  is  due  to  my 
associates  in  the  vestry  to  say,  that  they  have  responded  to  all 
appeals  in  behalf  of  the  destitute  districts  below  Canal-st.,  by  as 
liberal  an  expenditure  as  the  income  of  the  corporation, crippled 
by  a  heavy  debt,  and  burdened  by  large  annual  contributions  to 
other  churches,  has  admitted.  The  clerical  force  of  the  parish 
has  been  nearly  doubled  1  the  Sunday  schools  have  greatly  en- 
larged ;  parish  schools  for  the  gratuitous  education  of  children 
have  been  established ;  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  pews  in  Trin- 
ity Church, one  hundred  and  four  out  of  one  hundred  and  forty- 
four  in  St,  Paul's  and  a  large  number  in  St.  John's  have  been  made 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH.  257 

free;  efforts  have  been  put  forth  to  bring  into  the  church  those, 
who  have  not  been  accustomed  to  attend  any  religious  worship; 
Trinity  church  is  opened  twice  every  day  throughout  the  year, 
for  divine  service ;  a  mission  office,  has  been  established  to  re- 
ceive applications  for  aid;  lay  visitors  are  employed  to  seek  out 
want  and  relieve  it;  missionary  agencies  have  been  instituted  in 
connection  with  the  Commissioners  of  Emigration;  the  whole 
lower  part  of  the  city  has  been  virtually  made  a  field  of  mis- 
sionary labor,  and  a  degree  of  energy  has  been  infused  into  the 
ministrations  of  the  church,  temporal  and  spiritual,  which 
compensates,  in  a  great  degree,  for  the  lost  support  of  the 
religious  societies  removed  to  other  districts.  In  the  midst  of 
all  this  earnest  effort,  with  five  of  her  clergy  residing  within 
this  neglected  field  of  labor,  conversant  with  little  else  than 
its  destitution,  and  devoting  themselves  to  the  Jreliet  ofj  its 
wants,  Trinity  Church  finds  herself  assailed,  as  faithless  to  her 
trust,  by  those,  for  the  most  part,  whose  lives  are  past  amid 
the  social  amenities  of  the  upper  districts,  and  in  an  atmosphere 
redolent  of  indulgence  and  luxurious  ease. 

It  was  not  supposed  by  me,  when  this  plan  was  brought  for- 
ward, that  it  could  be  fully  carried  out,  until  a  considerable 
portion  of  the  leased  property  of  the  church  should  become 
available  for  the  purpose.  It  was  only  expected  that  a  begin- 
ning should  be  made,  and  that  the  plan,  in  its  great  outlines, 
should  have  a  practical  adoption.  However  earnest  the  desire 
to  put  it  in  operation  at  an  earlier  period,  the  unexpected  aug- 
mentation of  her  debt,  not  only  renders  such  a  desire  hopeless, 
but  manifests  that  it  may  be  even  further  postponed,  or  possibly 
defeated,  without  a  prudent  husbandry  of  her  resources. 

For  the  better  illustration  of  this  point,  I  annex  a  statement 
of  the  revenue  and  ordinary  expenditures  of  the  corporation,  for 
the  year  ending  the  30th  April,  1856. 


Revenue. 

1.  From  ground  rents  of  real  estate,   $67,359  53 

2.  "    pew  rents,   6,fl98  50 

3.  "    interest  on  bonds  and  mortgages,   13,259  40 

4.  "    Trinity  Church  cemetery,   4,155  92 


17 


$91,773  36 


958  BEPOaT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 

Expenditures. 

1.  Parish  expenditures,  including,  (besides  those  obviously  such) 
charges  upon,  and  expenses  of  management  and  care  of  the 
property  of  the  church,  necessary  diocesan  expenses,  and 
annuities  to  families  of  deceased  clergymen,  or  to  oflBcers^of 


the  parish,   $71,344  22 

2.  Interest  on  debt,   36,522  15 

3.  Allowances,   donations,  and   loans   to  other 

churches,   32,052  42 

$139,918  79 

Peduct  revenue,   91,773  36 

And  there  is  a  deficit  of,   $48,145  43 


for  the  year  ending  30th  April,  1856. 

The  deficiency  for  the  year  ending  30th  April,  1857,  was  esti- 
mated on  1st  May  last,  at  $40,638.66.  The  grants  actually  made 
by  the  corporation,  to  clergymen  and  churches,  to  be  paid  during 
the  year,  in  addition  to  the  regular  allowances,  amount  to 
$11,  640,  and  the  appropriations  for  building  school-houses  and 
renovating  and  enlarging  St.  John's  chapel,  to  $28,000,  making 


together   $39,640  00 

Deduct  cash  on  hand  1st  May,  1856,   10,016  38 

$29,623  62 

Add  estimated  deficiency,   40,638  66 

And  there  will  be  a  deficit  of   $70,262  28 


for  the  year  ending  the  30th  April,^  1857. 

This  deficit  can  only  be  made  by  selling  real  estate.  The 
deficits  for  the  last  ten  years,  exceed  two  hundred  and  seventy 
thousand  dollars,  and  the  corporation  has  provided  for  them  by 
selling  lots  and  applying  the  proceeds  to  the  augmentation 
of  her  insufficient  income.  While  she  is  assailed  as  niggardly  in 
her  donations,  and  as  engaged  in  a  systematic  accumulation  of 
her  capital,  she  has  in  fact,  for  years,  been  selling  her  real 
estate,  and  meeting  with  the  proceeds,  the  pressing  demands  on 
her,  a  large  portion  of  which,  have  grown  out  of  her  contribu- 
tions for  the  support  of  other  churches. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TKIMTY  CHURCH. 


259 


The  estimated  expenditure  of  the  present  year,  continued  till 
1862,  would  consume  so  much  of  the  Lispenard  lease,  which  be- 
comes disencumbered  in  that  year  and  embraces  a  large  and 
valuable  part  of  her  real  estate,  as  to  leave  her  a  balance  insuf- 


ficient to  pay  her  debt,  which  is  now   $668,813  00 

This  debt  may  be  reduced  by  mortgages,   199,469  00 

To  the  sum  of,   469,344  00 

Add  deficits  of  $70,278.66  for  five  years,   351,311  40 

And  there  will  be  the  sum  of    $820,655  40 


to  be  provided  for  by  sales  of  real  estate ;  a  sum  exceeding  the 
highest  estimate  in  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  value  of 
the  Lispenard  lease;  and  unless  the  prices  of  real  estate  become 
greatly  enhanced  during  the  next  five  years,  nothing  will  remain 
of  the  lease  referred  to,  after  discharging  the  pecuniary  obliga- 
tions above  specified,  a  portion  of  which  must  be  provided  for 
by  sale  of  other  property. 

The  expenditures  of  the  parish  cannot  be  materially  abridged 
without  prejudice  to  its  interests;  and  the  vestry  are  unwilling 
to  reduce  the  annual  allowances  to  other  churches,  believing  that 
such  a  reduction  would  cause  great  inconvenience  to  the  reci- 
pients, and,  in  some  cases,  impair  to  a  serious  extent  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  parishes  thus  assisted. 

In  regard  to  the  necessity  of  allowing  the  capital  of  her  en- 
dowment to  be  consumed  by  the  current  expenses  of  the  church, 
I  have  differed  in  opinion  with  a  majority  of  the  vestry.  While 
they  have  deplored  it  and  yielded  to  it  as  a  necessity,  I  have 
been  in  favor  of  meeting  it  by  retrenchment,  and  bringing  down 
the  expenditure,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  to  the  standard  of  the  in- 
come. I  have  urged  this  duty  on  the  vestry  as  one  demanded 
by  every  maxim  of  financial  prudence,  and  with  the  less  reluc- 
tance as  the  inconvenience  to  result  from  it  would  be  of  short 
duration;  for  if  the  real  estate  disposable  in  1862,  or  the  great 
mass  of  it,  can  be  kept  undiminished  until  that  time,  the  church 
will  be  in  a  condition  to  prosecute  the  great  plan  of  ministra- 
tion she  has  entered  on,  with  an  efficiency  which  cannot  fail  to 


260 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


produce  results  of  the  highest  importance  to  the  city  and  the 
State.  If  I  have  thought  the  vestry  in  error  in  this  respect,  it 
is  not  because  I  have  considered  them  lacking  in  liberality,  but 
because  they  have  yielded  under  Impulses  highly  honorable  to 
their  feelings,to  an  outside  pressure  for  contributions,  which,  in 
view  of  the  deep  and  lasting  interests  involved  in  the  question, 
I  would  have  resisted. 

This  is,  in  truth,  the  only  ground  of  apprehension  in  regard 
to  the  success  of  the  plan  of  religious  instruction  for  the  poor 
in  the  lower  part  of  the  city.  It  must  utterly  fail  if  Trinity 
Church,  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  a  regular  series  of  annual 
deficits  in  her  revenue,  caused  to  a  great  extent  by  her  contri- 
butions to  other  churches,  shall  consume  her  real  estate;  and  for 
this  reason  I  would  incur  a  temporary  inconvenience  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  out  a  great  system,  the  benefits  of  which 
would  be  incalculable  in  value  and  endless  in  duration. 

To  hold  her  real  estate  until  it  is  unencumbered  and  can  be  sold 
without  sacrifice,  is  in  no  jast  sense,  an  accumulation  of  capital. 
To  accumulate,  is  to  augment  by  a  reinvestment  of  income,  or  in 
other  words,  to  convert  revenue  into  principal.  If  her  income 
exceeded  her  necessary  expenditures,  if,  instead  of  contributing 
it  to  the  wants  of  others  she  were  to  withhold  it,  and  use  it  for 
the  augmentation  of  her  capital,  she  would  be  fairly  obnoxious 
to  the  imputation  cast  upon  her.  Instead  of  erring  in  this  di- 
rection she  has,  as  has  been  shown,  been  for  a  series  of  years 
expending  large  portions  of  the  principal,  and  mainly  for  the 
purpose  of  making  donations  to  other  parishes. 

In  proof  of  this  position,  I  submit  the  following  statement  of 
the  receipts  and  expenditures  of  the  corporation  for  the  last  ten 
years,  with  the  annual  deficits  of  income,  and  the  allowances, 
donations  and  loans  to  other  churches.  I  have  prepared  it  from 
the  books  of  the  corporation,  and  it  has  been  examined  and  com- 
pared by  Mr.  Dunscombe,  the  comptroller,  and  myself,  with  a 
general  statement  of  the  financial  affairs  of  the  church  for  the 
same  period,  made  by  Mr  Roach,  an  experienced  accountant, 
and  I  believe  it  to  be  in  all  respects  correct. 


OK  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH.  261 

Year  ending  Zdth  jSpril^  1847. 

Revenue,   $68,498  47 

Expenditure,   94,791  93 

Deficit,   $26,293  46 

Allowances  to  other  parishes,   $10,825  00 

Donations,   5,134  00 

Loans,   500  00 

Total  allowances,  &c.,   $16,559  00 

Year  ending  30th  Jipril,  1848. 

Revenue,   $74,258  54 

Expenditure,   95,984  28 

Deficit,   $21,725  74 

Allowances  to  other  parishes,   $10,175  00 

Donations,   7,800  50 

Loans,   3,900  00 

Total  allowances,  &c.,   $21,875  50 

Year  ending  Wth  ^pril,  1849. 

Revenue,   $78,869  85 

Expenditure,    88,096  79 

Deficit,   $9,226  94 

Allowances  to  other  parishes,   $12,600  00 

Donations,   4,889  14 

Loans,   3,800  00 

Total  allowances,  &c.,   $21,289  14 

Year  ending  30th  ^pril,  1850. 

Revenue,   $77,799_63 

Expenditure,   95,741  11 

Deficit,...   $17,941  48 


 I 

262  REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 

Allowances  to  other  parishes,   $13,000  00 

Donations,   4,705  18 

Loans,   12,198  00 

Total  allowances,  &c.,   $29,903  18 

Year  ending  30th  Jpril,  1851. 

Revenue,   $75,871  31 

Expenditure,   100,233  44 

Deficit,   $24,  362  13 

Allowances  to  other  parishes,   $13,683  00 

Donations,   4,488  13 

Loans,   f-,377  00 

Total  allowances,  &c.,   $27,548  13 

Year  ending  30th  ^pril,  1852. 

Revenue,    $77,979  77 

Expenditure,   108,317  39 

Deficit,  $30,337  62 

Allowances  to  other  parishes,  $14,715  00 

Donations,   12.806  72 

Loans,   7,650  00 

Total  allowances,  &c.,   $35,171  72 

Year  ending  30th  Jlpril^  1853. 

Revenue,    $86,073  97 

Expenditure,   110,592  66 

Deficit,  $24,518  69 

Allowances  to  other  parishes,   $16,785  00 

Donations,   9,186  21 

Loans,   7,700  00 

Total  allowances,  &c.,   $33,671  SI 


ON  AFKAIBS  OF  TRINITY  CHUBCH.  263 

Year  ending  30th  ^pril,  1854. 

Revenue,   $85,710  53 

Expenditure,   137,078  99 

■     Deficit,   $51 ,368  46 

Allowances  to  other  parishes,   $21,706  00 

Donations,   6,916  26 

Loans,   17,100  00 

Total  allowances,  &c.,   $45,722  26 

Year  ending  SOtk  April^  1855. 

Revenue,   $95,195  72 

Expenditure,   114,677  30 

Deficit,   $19,677  30 

Allowances  to  other  parishes,   $15,058  33 

Donations,   7,290  16 

Loans,   2,000  00 

Total  allowances,  &c.,   $24,348  49 

Year  ending -^Xith  Jipril^l^^Q. 

Revenue,   $91,773  36 

Expenditure,    139,918  79 

Deficit,   $48,145  43 

Allowances  to  other  parishes,   $15,500  00 

Donations,   10,552  42 

Loans,   6,000  00 

Total  allowances,  &c.,   $32,052  42 


264 


REPORT  OF  SKLECT  COMMITTEE 


Recapitulation . 


Deficits.  Allowances,  ia. 

1847,                                                 $26,293  46  $16,559  00 

1848,                                                21,725  74  21,875  50 

1849,                                                  9,226  94  21,289  14 

1850,                                                17,941  48  29,903  18 

1851,                                                24,362  13  27,548  13 

1852,                                                30,337  62  35,171  72 

1853,                                                24,518  «9  33,671  21 

1854,  ,                                      51,368  46  45,722  26 

1855,                                                19,677  30  24,348  49 

1856,                                                48,145  43  32,052  42 


$273,597  25    $288,141  05 


Jlnalysis  of  Allowances^  Sfc.  , 

Allowances.  Donations.  Loans. 

1847,                $10,825  00    $5,134  00    $600 

1848,                  10,175  00    7,800  50    3,900 

1849,.                 12,600  00    4,889  14    3,800 

1850,                   13,000  00    4,705  18    12,198 

1851,..               13,683  00    4,488  13    9,377 

1852,                  14,715  00    12,806  72    7,650 

1853,                  16,785  00    9,186  21    7,700 

1854-,                   21,706  00    6,916  26    17,100 

1855,                  15,058  33    7,290  16    2,000 

1856,                  15,500  00    10,552  42    6,000 


$144,047  33  $73,768  72  $70,325 


$73,768  72 

144,047 

33 

$217,816 

05 

70,325 

00 

$288,141 

05 

By  this  statement,  it  appears  that  the  deficits  of  revenue  in 
the  last  ten  years  amount  to  $273,597.35,  and  the  amount  given 
away  and  contributed  to  the  support  of  other  parishes  is 
$288,141.05,  exceeding  the  aggregate  deficit  by  the  sum  of 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


265 


$15,573.80;  and,  as  I  have  already  said,  the  whole  deficit  of  the 
ten  years,  incurred  for  the  benefit  of  others,  has  been  made  up 
by  a  sale  of  real  estate,  and  is  to  tliat  extent,  a  consumption  of 
principal. 

Sevex'al  of  the  witnesses  have  testified  that,  in  granting  aid  to 
other  churches,  the  vestry  have  acted  under  the  influence  of 
party-feeling,  refusing  assistance  to  those  who  differ  with  them 
in  opinion,  and  granting  it  freely  to  those  whose  views  are  in 
accordance  with  their  own. 

I  feel  it  to  be  my  solemn  duty  to  repel  this'imputation,  by 
stating  my  own  experience.  I  have  been  more  than  seven  years 
a  member  of  the  vestry,  and  have  been  on  terms  of  the  most 
unreserved  and  confidential  communication  with  ray  associates. 
I  have  discussed  with  them  the  propriety  of  granting  and  declin- 
ing applications  for  aid,  not  only  at  nearly  all  the  meetings  of 
the  vestry,  but  in  many  cases  in  private  interviews;  and  no 
reference  has  ever  been  made  by  me  or  by  any  one  of  them,  at 
any  meeting,  official  or  private,  to  the  party  views  of  any  of  the 
rectors,  or  religious  societies  presenting  such  applications.  The 
party  divisions,  which  have  existed  for  several  years  in  the  Epis- 
copal church,  and  which  have  not  only  impaired'its  capacity  for 
doing  good,  but  dishonored  those  on  both  sides  who  have  been 
active  in  keeping  them  alive,  have  never  been  a  subject  of  dis- 
cussion at  any  meeting  of  the  vestry  which  I  have  attended;  nor 
have  they  been  alluded  to  in  connexion  with  applications  for 
aid.  I  have  taken  a  deep  interest  in  several  applications  myself, 
and  have,  perhaps,  had  some  influence  in  securing  grants  of 
money  to  the  applicants,  and  in  no  instance,  have  I  inquired 
what  were  the  particular  views  of  the  rector  of  the  parish  to 
which  they  belonged.  I  do  not  even  know  to  this  day  whether 
they  are  high  church  or  low  church.  The  only  inquiries  ever 
made  were  in  regard  to  their  pecuniary  and  social  condition  and 
their  need  of  assistance;  and  these  considerations,  together  with 
the  ability  of  Trinity  Church  at  the  time  to  make  the  grants 
asked  for,  and  the  probability  that  the  grants  would  be  effective 
for  the  objects  in  view,  have  been  the  only  ones  which  have 
guided  me  in  my  votes.    I  believe  the  other  members  of  the 


266 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


vestry  have  been  equally  free  from  the  influence  of  party 
motives.  My  belief  is  founded  upon  my  knowledge  of  them  as 
enlightened,  conscientious  and  liberal  men,  and  upon  aU  they 
have  said  and  done  in  my  presence  through  a  familiar  associa- 
tion of  seven  years.  I  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  been  deceived 
in  regard  to  their  principles  of  action,  but  upon  the  hypothesis 
of  a  depth  of  dissimulation  on  their  part  and  an  obtuseness  of 
perception  on  my  own,  too  gross  for  the  largest  credulity. 

I  can  say  with  the  same  confidence,  that  I  do  not  believe  those 
who  have  the  management  of  the  affairs  of  Trinity  Church,  have 
sought,  during  the  period  of  my  connection  with  them,  a  period 
of  a  good  deal  of  excitement,  to  influence  rectors  or  parishes  on 
any  question  in  the  diocese  through  the  imstrumentality  of  her 
donations.  It  is  due  to  others  to  add,  that  I  have  for  several 
years  attended  the  conventions  of  the  diocese  and  become  ac- 
quainted with  a  large  number  of  the  clergy,  I  have  rarely 
met  a  more  intelligent  or  independent  body  of  men  ;  and  I 
regard  the  intimation  that  they  would  be  governed  in  the  doc- 
trines they  teach  or  in  the  official  acts  Ihey  have  to  perform,  by 
considerations  arising  out  of  the  pecuniary  aid  their  parishes  may 
have  received  from  Trinity  Church,  as  alike  ungenerous  and 
unjust.  In  a  word,  I  consider  all  these  imputations  of  influence 
on  the  one  hand  and  of  subserviency  on  the  other,  as  the  offspring 
of  mere  groundless  suspicion  ;  and  they  are  in  some  instance  so 
loosely  hazarded,  as  to  make  it  the  part  of  charity  to  refer  them 
to  tlie  same  narrow  and  distempered  views  of  duty,  which  are 
falsely  imputed  to  the  vestry  of  Trinity. 

I  have  thus  laid  before  the  committee,  with  entire  frankness, 
a  statement  of  my  connection  with  Trinity  Church,  and  the  part 
I  have  borne  in  the  management  of  her  financial  afiairs,  and  the 
great  scheme  of  religious  and  temporal  ministration,  which  I 
desire  to  see  carried  out  under  her  auspices  and  through  the  aid 
of  her  endowments,  in  the  lower  districts  of  the  city.  I  do  not 
believe  the  importance  of  giving  effect  to  this  plan  can  be  over- 
stated. The  funds  of  Trinity  Church  are  the  only  resource  for 
accomplishing  it  ;  she  must  execute  it  or  it  will  fall  to  the 
ground,  and  the  district  in  which  three  of  her  church  edifices 


ON  AFFAIBS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


267 


stand,  become  nearly  desolate  for  all  spiritual  purposes.  TLe 
prosperity  of  the  city  is  deeply  involved  in  it;  destitution,  tem- 
poral and  spiritual,  goes  hand  in  hand  with  crime;  and  when 
even  now  the  spirit  of  acquisitiveness  which  is  characteristic  of 
the  age,  and  has  become  its  greatest  scourge,  is  dishonoring  it  by 
forgeries  the  most  bare-faced  and  staining  it  by  murders  the  most 
foul,  what  shall  be  our  social  condition,  if,  in  a  large  portion  of 
the  city,  destitution  and  spiritual  neglect  shall  combine  with 
cupidity  to  arm  the  hand  of  violence  and  stimulate  it  to  still 
grosser  outrage.  What  higher  office  can  Trinity  Church  fulfill, 
what  higher  benefit  can  she  confer  on  the  classes  which  have 
the  deepest  stake  in  ths  security  of  property  and  life,  than  by 
devoting  herself,  as  she  is  now  doing,  to  make  the  lessons  of 
religious  and  social  duty  familiar  to  those  who,  under  the  pres- 
sure of  their  physical  wants,  have  the  strongest  temptation  to 
forget  them? 

In  the  upper  districts,  the  possessors  of  nearly  the  whole  pri- 
vate wealth  of  the  city  have  become  domesticated.  There  is 
more  than  one  congregation,  the  individual  possessions  of  which 
are  believed  to  exceed  in  value,  with  the  largest  estimate  ever 
put  on  it,  the  entire  property  Trinity  Church  holds,  for  the  sup- 
port of  her  four  congregations.  Those  whom  fortune  has  thus 
overburdened  with  her  gifts,  should  be  willing  to  leave  un- 
impaired, the  endowments  of  Trinity  Church,  that  she  may 
make  suitable  provision  foj'  the  poor,  whom  they  have  left 
to  her  care;  and,  whatever  may  be  the  narrowness  of  spirit 
which  presides  over  particular  circles,  no  doubt  is  entertained 
of  the  generous  and  catholic  feeling  whicli  pervades  the  great 
body  of  the  opulent  classes.  No  city  has  more  cause  to  be  thank- 
ful for  the  munificence  with  which  some  of  her  richest  men 
have  contributed  to  the  great  objects  of  social  improvement 
within  her  limits;  and  it  is  most  gratifying  to  add,  that  in  more 
than  one  instance,  the  wealth  which  exists  in  the  largest  masses, 
has  been  poured  out  with  the  noblest  profusion,  to  build  up  lite- 
rary and  charitable  institutions  for  the  common  benefit.  To  such  a 
spirit  of  munificence,  no  appeal  to  relieve  the  destitution  which 
hangs  upon  the  outskirts  of  the  upper  districts,  need  be  addressed 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


in  vain.  If  among  those,  to  whom  providence  has  committed  the 
spiritual  guidance  of  these  favored  classes,  there  are  any  who 
seek  to  compel  Trinity  Church  to  scatter  her  endowments  broad- 
cast over  the  city,  and  thus  disqualiy  herself  for  the  great  work 
of  charity  devolved  on  her,  in  the  district  in  which  her  lot  has 
been  cast;  if  there  are  any  who  are  engaged  in  inculcating  an 
autiphonal  beneficence,  the  utterances  of  which  are  to  be  given 
only  in  response  to  those  of  Trinity,  it  is  suggested,  with  the 
profoundest  deference,  whether  a  nobler  field  for  the  exercise  of 
their  influence,  does  nut  lie  directly  before  them.  Whether  the 
great  ends  of  their  calling  will  not  be  better  subserved  by  la- 
boring to  infuse  into  surrounding  atmospheres,  over  cast  with 
penury  and  want,  some  of  the  golden  light  which  irradiates 
their  own. 

The  State,  nay,  the  whole  country,  has  a  deep  interest  in 
this  question.  Ths  city  of  New-York,  embodying  as  she  does,  to 
a  great  extent,  the  commercial  and  financial  power  of  the  Union, 
must  exert  a  sensible  influence  upon  the  moral  and  intellectual 
character  of  all  with  whom  she  is  brought  into  association. 
The  slightest  agitations  on  her  surface  undulate  in  all  directions 
to  the  great  circumlerence,  of  which  she  is  the  centre.  On  Tri- 
nity Church  are  devolved,  in  the  order  of  events,  the  spiritual 
instruction  and  guidance  of  the  district,  by  which  she  is  brought 
most  directly  into  contact  with  all  that  lies  beyond  her  limits. 
If  this  duty  is  not  faithfully  performed,  no  voice  should  be 
raised  in  palliation  of  the  delinquency.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
any  of  those  who  have  withdrawn  from  this  part  of  the  city, 
the  wealth  which  *  providence  has,  in  such  disproportion, 
bestowed  on  them,  shall  seek  to  deprive  the  destitute,  whom 
they  have  left  behind,  of  their  sole  resource  for  spiritual  in- 
struction and  the  alleviation  of  their  temporal  wants;  if  they 
shall  succeed  by  mis  stating  the  condition,  and  unjustly  im- 
peaching the  motives  of  Trinity  Church,  in  defeating  her  efforts 
to  carry  out  the  great  system  of  labor  with  which  she  is  occu- 
pied, they  will  incur  the  gravest  and  the  most  odious  of  all  re- 
sponsibilities, that  of  consigning  one  of  the  most  important  dis- 
tricts in  the  emporium  of  the  Union  to  an  intellectual  and  spiri- 
tual death. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


269 


By  the  Senate  committee  : 

Q.  Were  not  Mr.  Curtiss  and  Mr.  Wolf  in  the  vestry  of  Trinity 
Church  ?  A.  I  think  that  Mr.  Wolf  ceased  to  be  a  member  of 
the  vestry  before  I  became  a  member  of  it.  Mr.  Curtiss  is  now 
a  member  of  the  vestry. 

Q.  Would  not  they  be  as  likely  to  understand  the  affairs  of 
the  vestry  as  other  members  of  it?  A.  I  think  they  have  the  same 
opportunities  that  other  members  of  the  vestry  have 

Q.  Do  you  or  do  you  not  know  that  the  church  reported  in 
1854,  the  church  mortgages  as  part  of  her  capital?  A.  I  do  not 
know;  as  I  have  stated  in  my  communication,  I  was  out  of  the 
country  during  part  of  the  years  1854-55. 

Q.  Are  there  not  free  schools  provided  in  New-York  for  all 
classes  1    A.I  understand  there  are,  by  the  State. 

Q.  If  the  vestry  of  Trinity  had  adopted  the  first  plan  proposed 
for  building  Trinity  chapel,  at  a  cost  of  $40,0U0,  would  not  their 
debt  have  been  now  less  by  nearly  $200,000  1  A.  If  the  plan 
had  been  adhered  to,  and  had  cost  no  more  than  the  architect 
estimated,  a  much  less  sum  than  $230,000  would  have  been  ex- 
pended on  the  chapel  and  site.  In  the  cost  of  $230,000  is  the 
expense  of  site.  Whether  the  debt  of  the  corporation  would 
have  been  less  now,  of  course,  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Do  you  not  consider  that  the  estate  of  Trinity  Church  is  now 
of  much  greater  value  than  at  any  previous  period  1  A.  That 
question  I  cannot  answer.  I  am  not  a  member  of  the  finance 
committee,  and  therefore  am  not  acquainted  with  the  details  of 
the  value  of  property. 

Q.  Do  you  or  do  you  not  know  that  there  have  been  applica- 
tions to  the  Legislature  for  the  repeal  of  the  law  of  1814?  A.  I 
am  not  aware  of  any  such  application. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  the  proceedings  of  the  vestry 
in  respect  to  the  valuation  of  the  St.  John's  Park  property  ? 
A.  I  was  not  present  at  the  first  meeting  when  that  subject  was 
brought  before  the  vestry.    I  was  present,  I  think,  at  the  meet- 


270 


REPOHT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


ing  at  which  that  subject  was  discussed.  My  impression  is,  that 
the  vestry  at  first  refused  to  entertain  the  proposition  at  all  ;  but 
at  the  earnest  solicitation  of  nearly  all  the  owners  around  the 
park,  they  finally  agreed  to  release  their  interest  if  they  could 
receive  the  sum  of  $400^000.  I  never  understood  this  to  be  con- 
sidered as  the  value  of  the  property,  but  rather  as  the  measure 
of  the  damage  that  would  be  done  to  Trinity  Church  by  destroy- 
ing the  park.  This  was  my  own  view  of  the  subject,  and  I  con- 
sidered the  interest  of  Trinity  Church  so  remote  and  contingent 
that  I  would  not  have  imdertaken  to  put  a  valuation  upon  it  in 
money. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  the  making  of  the  report  of 
Trinity  Church,  in  February,  1856  1  A.  No,  sir.  I  was  out  of 
the  State. 

Q.  Have  you  stated  in  your  written  testimony  what  amount 
Trinity  Church  pays  to  Bishop  Potter  as  his  salary  1  A.  The 
amount  is  embraced  in  the  aggregate  expenditure,  but  is  not 
specified. 

Q  Will  you  please  to  state  itl  A.  I  think  it  is  $1,600.  Mr. 
Minturn  and  Mr.  Bradish,  who  were  members  of  the  committee 
with  myself,  appointed  by  the  convention  of  the  diocese,  for  the 
purpose  of  apportioning  the  Bishop's  salary  among  the  churches 
of  the  diocese,  thought  Trinity  Church  should  pay  a  larger  sum, 
and  I  think  on  the  ground  of  her  endowment. 

Q.  From  what  you  know  of  the  value  of  real  estate  in  the 
city  of  New- York,  would  you  not  think  that  the  property  of 
Trinity  Church  is  increasing  in  value  ?  A.  I  have  no  doubt  it  is. 

Q.  I  perceive  by  the  report  of  Trinity  Church,  that  the  leases 
of  a  large  number  of  lots  have  expired,  or  are  about  expiring. 
I  would  ask  whether  it  is  your  opinion  the  vestry  should  sell 
those  lots,  and  pay  their  debts,  or  lease  them  1  A.  It  is  my 
opinion  they  should  sell  the  lots  and  the  debts  of  the  corporation 
be  paid. 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  majority  of  the  vestry  agree  with  you  in 
that  opinion  1    A.  That  I  cannot  say. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


271 


Q.  Is  there  not,  in  certain  parts  of  the  city  of  New-York,  a 
great  scarcity  or  want  of  churches — I  mean  in  the  eastern  part 
of  the  town,  and  in  the  4th,  6th,  13th  and  14th  wards?  A.  I  am 
not  acquainted  with  the  limits  of  the  wards;  though  I  have  no 
special  knowledge,  I  have  no  doubt  churches  might  be  estab- 
lished with  advantage  in  many  parts  of  the  city. 

Q.  After  selling  sufficient  property  to  pay  the  present  indebt- 
edness rf  Trinity  Church,  in  your  opinion,  should  her  policy  be 
to  retain  the  balance  of  her  real  estate  and  appropriate  only  the 
income  of  if?  A.I  cannot  say  that  I  have  had  any  definite  plan 
with  regard  to  the  future.  My  idea  has  been  that  her  debt 
should  first  be  paid;  that  her  property  should,  as  lar  as  practi- 
cable, be  preserved  until  it  could  be  sold  without  loss;  and  that 
when  she  has  set  apart  the  funds  necessary  to  take  care  of  the 
lower  part  of  the  city,  I  would  be  very  liberal  in  donations  to 
other  churches,  not  only  of  income,  but  of  principal,  where  it 
could  be  done  without  impairing  her  own  means  of  usefulness 
in  her  particular  sphere  of  duties. 

'  Q.  When  the  leases  expire,  could  not  the  property  of  Trinity 
Church  be  made  more  productive  by  a  sale  than  by  re-letting; 
and  would  not  the  sale  be  more  beneficial  to  the  interests  of  the 
church  and  city"?  A.  It  is  a  very  large  question,  and  one  that 
I  am  not  prepared  to  answer  at  this  time.  I  will  add,  that  I 
have  been  in  favor  of  selling  her  property  whenever  it  could  be 
done  advantageously. 

Q.  Cannot  the  property  be  now  sold  to  advantage,  subject  to 
the  leases  referred  to  1  A.  As  a  general  rule  I  should  think 
not;  though  I  have  no  doubt  that  some  particular  pieces  of  pro- 
perty or  lots  may  be. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  of  the  policy  of  making  some  of  the 
large  grants  to  the  up  town  churches,  the  Annunciation  and  St. 
Luke's?  A.  I  was  not  at  the  meetings  of  the  vestry,  I  think,  at 
which  those  two  grants  were  made;  and  I  cannot,  therefore, 
speak  of  the  special  inducements  for  making  them. 

Q.  When  acting  as  a  vestryman  of  Trinity,  do  you  consider 
yourself  acting  as  a  vestryman  of  Trinity  parish  only,  or  as  a 


272 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


trustee  for  Episcopalians  in  the  city  of  New-York  generally'? 
A.  I  consider  myself  as  acting  as  a  trustee  for  Trinity  parish 
only. 

By  counsel  for  Trinity  Church  : 

Q.  What  can  you  state  with  regard  to  the  mortgage  held  by 
Trinity  Church  upon  Zion  church,  in  Mott-street  ?  A.  My  re- 
collection is  that  Trinity  Church  loaned  to  Zion  church,  in  Mott- 
street,  in  1830,  the  sum  of  $7,000.  In  1850,  on  the  removal  of 
the  church  to  Murray  Hill,  Trinity  Church  transferred  the  loan 
of  the  mortgage  to  the  new  church,  which  was  to  be  built,  and 
remitted  the  interest  of  the  old  mortgage  for  the  twenty  years, 
which  amounted  to  $9,800. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  me  whether  this  (presenting  the  following 
paper)  is  a  copy  of  a  resolution  from  the  minutes  of  the  vestry 
of  Trinity  church  1  A.  It  is.  I  compared  it  with  the  original 
minutes.    The  following  is  a  copy : 

Extract  from  the  Minutes  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church, 
held  on  the  28th  day  of  March,  1812. 

RESOLUTION. 

Report  of  committee  on  the  state  of  the  church: 

It  having  been  represented  to  this  board,  that  certain  persons 
belonging  to  Protestant  Episcopal  congregations  in  this  city, 
which  have  been  incorporated  as  separate  and  distinct  from  the 
corporation  of  Trinity  church,  and  who  are  not  pew  holders  in 
Trinity  church,  or  any  of  its  chapels,  claim  a  right  to  vote  at  the 
annual  elections  for  church  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity 
church,  therefore — 

Resolved,  As  the  unanimous  sense  of  this  board,  that  no  other 
persons  except  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York,  who  profess 
themselves  members  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  and 
hold,  occupy  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in  Trinity  church,  or  one 
of  its  chapels,  and  regularly  pay  to  the  support  of  the  said 
church,  or  regularly  worshipping  therein,  shall  partake  of  the 
holy  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  the  said  church,  or  one 
of  its  chapels,  at  least  once  in  every  year,  are  entitled  to  vote  at 
the  said  elections. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


273 


Examination  by  counsel  for  Trinity  Church. — Tokn  R.  Living- 
ston called  aud  sworn  : 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  a  vestryman  of  Trinity  Church  1 
A.  I  was  elected,  I  think,  in  January,  1847,  and  have  continued 
to  this  time. 

Q.  What  Episcopal  churches  were  there  in  the  city  of  New- 
York,  independent  of  Trinity  Church,  prior  to  1814,  and  which 
of  such -churches  were  built  by  Trinity  Church  ?  A..  There  were 
nine  Episcopal  churches,  independent  of  Trinity  and  her  chap- 
els ;  three  of  which  were  built  by  Trinity  Church.  Tliey  were 
St.  George's  chapel,  Grace  church  and  St.  Mark's  church. 

Q.  How  has  the  increase  of 'parishes  in  the  city  of  New- York, 
since  1813,  compared  with  the  increase  of  the  population  of  the 
city  1  A.  In  1814,  there  were  twelve  congregations,  including 
those  of  Trinity  parish.  In  1847,  there  were  thirty-five  congre- 
gations. In  1857,  there  are,  as  appears  in  evidence,  fifty  con- 
gregations. The  increase  from  1814  to  1847j  a  term  of  thirty- 
three  years,  was  twenty-three  congregations.  The  increase  from 
1847  to  1857,  a  term  of  ten  years,  is  fifteen  congregations.  In 
1814,  the  population  was  105,000,  according  to  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Winston.  In  1857,  the  population  is  said  to  be  about  650,- 
000.  Some  of  the  recently  built  churches,  are  very  large.  I 
will  instance  St.  George's  church,  Calvary,  Trinity  chapel  and 
the  church  of  the  Transfiguration. 

Q.  Has  Trinity  Church  ever  foreclosed  any  of  the  mortgages 
received  for  loans  to  churches  1  A.  I  am  quite  sure  she  never 
has. 

Q.  Will  you  explain  the  transactions  with  regard  to  the 
premises  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  City  Mission  Society  1  A. 
In  the  early  days  of  the  city  Mission  Society,  the  corporation 
of  Trinity  Church  determined  to  make  annual  appropriations 
towards  the  support  of  the  missionaries,  in  preference  to  giving 
land  or  building  churches.  They  accordingly,  in  1832,  appro- 
priated $1,200,  and  afterwards  $1,800  per  annum.  In  the  year 
1837,  the  [society  was  embarrassed,  and  obtained  from  Trinity 

18 


274 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Church  a  loan  of  $10,000,  secured  by  a  mortgage  on  the  two 
mission  churches  of  the  Holy  Evangelists  in  Vandewater-street, 
and  the  church  of  Epiphany  in  Stanton-street.  This  was  a 
business  transaction  and  in  no  sense  a  gift  to  the  society.  In 
1844,  the  Howard  Insurance  company  foreclosed  prior  mortgages 
held  by  them  on  the  two  City  Mission  churches,  and  the  premises, 
by  an  arrangement  made  by  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Cliurch,  were 
transferred  to  the  two  congregations  that  had  become  indepen- 
dent corporations.  The  coi'poration  of  Trinity  Church  assumed 
the  payment  of  $13,000  of  the  consideration  money,  the  balance 
I  believe  was  raised  by  the  respective  church  corporations.  In 
this  arrangement,  it  Avas  necessary  to  credit  the  City  Mission 
Society  with  the  residue  of  the  consideration  or  purchase  money, 
after  satisfying  prior  existing  incumbrances  on  the  px-emises. 
The  amount  thus  audited  is  |10.140.5l,  which  amount  increased 
to  $13,000,  was  advanced,  by  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church, 
to  the  two  churches  in  equal  amounts,  and  mortgages  given  by  ■« 
each  of  them  to  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  for  the  sum 
of  $6,500.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  in  this  instance  the  mort- 
gage to  Trinity  Church  "did  tend  to  secure  the  permanent  use 
to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  the  building  and  property 
thus  mortgaged." 

Q.  What  have  you  to  say  with  regard  to  the  mortgage  on  the 
Vandtwater -street  Church?  A.  When  the  corporation  of  Ti'inity 
Church  had  made  arrangements  for  the  purchase  of  St.  George's 
church  in  Beekman  street,  they  received  a  communication  from 
the  vestry  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Evangelists  in  Vandewater- 
street,  in  the  4th  ward  of  the  city,  stating  that  two  churches  so 
closely  together  as  the  Holy  Evangelists  and  St.  George's  in 
Beekman-street,  having  special  reference  to  the  benefit  of  the 
same  class  of  persons — the  poor  who  attended — would  injudi- 
ciously affect  each  other,  and  so  weaken  both  as  to  be  a  cause  of 
lasting  sorrow.  They  also  stated  that  their  church  was  in  a 
dilapidated  condition,  and  would  require  a  large  expenditure  to 
repair  it;  and  besides  this,  that  the  location  for  a  church  had 
become  the  worst  in  the  city.  This  communication  was  referred 
to  a  special  committee  on  St.  George's  church,  and  on  their  re- 
commendation, the  vestry  removed  the  congregation  of  the  church 


ON  AFFAIRS   OF  TRIMTV  CHURCH. 


275 


of  the  Holy  Evangelists  to  St.  George's  church  in  Beekman-st., 
and  had  the  j^ropertj  transferred  to  that  corporation.  The  church 
in  Vandewater-street  was  then  sold  by  its  own  vestry,  and  after 
paying  off  all  prior  incumbrances,  the  balance  of  $1,200  was 
paid  over  to  Trinity  corporation,  who  expended  this  amount, 
together  with  a  much  larger  sum,  in  preparing  St.  George's 
church  for  their  accommodation. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  much  money  the  church  of  St.  John  the 
Baptist  has  received  from  Trinity  Church  since  its  report  was 
made'?  A.  The  corporation  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  have 
recently  erected  a  fine  church  building  in  the  upper  part  of  the 
city.  Before  the  church  was  completed,  they  became  very  much 
embarrassed  and  applied  to  Trinity  to  assume  the  interest  on 
the  sum  of  $15,0t)0.  This  matter  was  referred  to  the  standing 
committee,  who  reported  adversely  to  the  application.  It  was 
considered  in  the  vestry,  their  report  was  overruled  and  the 
application  granted.  I  will  here  add  that  on  the  same  evening, 
a  similar  report  was  made  on  the  application  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Howlandj  it  having  become  absolutely  necessary  to  protect  the 
church  building  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  the  vestry  could  not 
respond  at  that  time  to  Mr.  Rowland's  application,  and  referred 
it  back  to  the  same  committee  for  further  action. 

Q.  What  explanation  can  you  give  in  regard  to  the  grant  to 
St.  Jude's  church?  A.  In  1843,  the  standing  committee  made  a 
report  on  an  application  of  St.  Jude's  Church  for  aid,  setting 
forth  that  the  church  had  no  permanent  edifice  or  fixed  location, 
that  its  present  place  of  worship  was  in  a  part  of  the  city  sur- 
rounded by  other  churches  affording  ample  accommodations  for 
all  persons  in  that  vicinity,  and  recommending  on  these  grounds, 
and  also  on  the  ground  of  the  condition  of  the  finances  of  the 
corporation,  that  the  appl'cation  be  not  complied  with,  which 
was  adopted  by  the  vestry. 

Q.  Has  the  amount  of  annual  stipends  been  reduced  ?  A.  I 
think  not.  My  impression  is  that  the  aggregate  amount  has 
been  gradually  increased  each  year  during  the  last  ten  years. 
There  are  three  instances  to  my  knowledge,  where  they  have 


276 


REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


been  entirely  dispensed  with.  St.  Thomas'  Church,  the  salary 
of  whose  rector  is  said  to  be  $5000  per  annum,  St.  Bartholo- 
mew's and  the  Church  of  the  Ascension,  whose  congregations 
have  been  equally  liberal  towards  their  pastor.  These  amounts 
have  been  transferred  to  other  congregations  who  were  in  need 
of  them. 

Q.  What  effect  has  the  disposing  of  large  masses  ol  property 
by  lease,  had  upon  the  value  of  real  estate  contiguous  1  A- 
Some  of  the  finest  and  most  costly  private  dwellings  in  the  city 
of  New- York  are  built  on  the  property  of  the  Trustees  of  the 
Sailor's  Snug  Harbor,  a  charitable  institution.  It  is  situated  in 
the  finest  and  most  fashionable  part  of  the  city,  and  the  real 
estate  in  the  vicinity  is  materially  enhanced  in  value  by  the 
condition  of  this  leasehold  property.  In  another  portion  of  the 
city,  a  large  leasehold  estate  on  Fourteenth  street,  extending 
from  University  Place  to  the  Sixth  Avenue,  known  as  the 
Spingler  lease,  is  covered  with  similar  fine  dwellings,  and  the 
property  in  the  neighborhood  is  of  the  most  valuable  in  the  city. 
The  same  is  also  true  of  the  leased  property  of  Columbia  Col- 
lege, which  was  derived  from  Trinity  Church;  and  the  church's 
leased  property  in  the  lower  part  of  the  city  has  always  been 
well  improved  and  fine  buildings  erected  upon  it. 

Q.  Is  it  true,  as  stated  in  the  report  of  the  committee,  foot  of 
page  18,  that  Col.  Troop's  pamphlet  was  an  inducement  to  the 
Legislature  to  pass  the  act  of  1814?  A.  It  cannot  be  true,  from 
the  fact  that  the  act  was  passed  on  the  2d  of  April,  1813,  and 
the  pamphlet  bears  date  the  6th  of  September  following. 

Q.  What  have  you  to  say  as  to  the  result  of  the  policy  of  the 
vestry  in  granting  money  instead  of  lots?  A.  I  desire  to  con- 
trast the  result  of  the  policy  adopted  prior  and  since  the  year 
1814.  Since  the  year  1814,  the  policy  of  Trinity  Church  has 
been  to  grant  to  churches,  institutions  of  charity,  and  learning^ 
money  instead  of  lots.  Besides  having  built  St.  George's,  Grace 
and  St.  Mary's  churches,  and  St.  John's  and  St.  Paul's  chapels, 
this  corporation  have  aided  in  this  State  about  201  churches — 71 
in  western  New- York,  41  in  the  city  of  New-York  and  89  in  other 
parts  of  this  diocese.    Hobart  College,  at  Geneva,  has  been  made 


OF  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


277 


free  by  her  means;  the  General  Theological  Seminary  and  the 
Education  and  Missionary  Fund  aided ;  appropriations  have  been 
made  to  foreign,  home  and  city  missions  of  our  church;  an  Epis- 
copal residence  has  been  purchased,  and  the  Episcopal  fund 
largely  increased ;  annuities  have  been  made  to  the  families  of 
deceased  clergymen ;  the  aged  and  infirm  of  the  clergy  have  been 
assisted,  and  monuments  have  been  erected  to  worth,  valor  and 
patriotism.  These  are  some  of  the  advantages  obtained,  and 
benefits  derived  from  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  1059  lots.  It 
is  respectfully  submitted  that  they  will  compare  favorably,  in 
value  and  usefulness,  with  the  former  policy  of  the  vestry,  of 
granting  a  large  number  of  lots  to  a  few  favored  churches  and 
institutions. 

Q.  State  whether  grants  have  been  made  in  a  spirit  of  partia- 
lity or  partizanship  1 

A.  I  answer  unqualifiedly  no,  on  behalf  of  myself  and  asso- 
ciates. 

Q.  Has  Trinity  Church,  in  your  opinion,  done  her  utmost  to 
make  the  capital  of  her  property  available  for  religious  pur- 
poses, SccI  A.  My  answer  is,  that  she  has  endeavored  to  do  her 
best  in  the  exercise  of  an  honest  judgment. 

Q.  Is  there  any  obstacle  to  the  collection  of  church  mortgages 
if  the  vestry  are  so  disposed  1  A.  I  think  there  is,  the  great 
obstacle  of  good  faith. 

Q.  Are  there  other  standing  business  committees  in  the  vestry 
besides  the  standing  committee  ?  A.  There  are  three  standing 
committees  in  all ;  the  standing  committee  proper,  which  is  the 
finance  committee,  the  committee  on  supplies  and  repairs,  and 
the  committee  on  the  cemetery;  special  committees  are  frequently 
appointed  as  occasion  may  require. 

By  the  Senate  committee : 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  the  poll  list  of  1854,  and  see  how  many 
of  them  are  not  connected  with  Trinity  Church  as  vestrymen, 
clergymen  or  ofl&cers A.  All  are  corporators  of  Trinity  Church, 
twelve  of  the  twenty-six  are  in  no  manner  connected  with  Trinity 
Church  as  vestrymen,  clergymen  or  ofl&cers. 


278 


REPORT   OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


Q.  Does  not  Col.  Troup's  pamphlet  bear  date  before  the  law 
of  1814  was  passed  ]  A.  Col.  Troup's  pamphlet  bears  date  the 
6th  of  September,  1813.  The  bill  had  passed  both  houses  on  the 
2d  of  April,  1813,  and  became  a  law  on  the  25tli  of  January, 
1814.  I  beg  leave  to  add.  Col.  Troup  states  in  his  pamphlet  that 
two  members  of  the  council  of  revision,  were  pleased  to  express 
a  desire  that  he  would  furnish  them  his  reasons  in  support  of 
the  bill,  and  in  compliance  with  this  desire,  his  argument  was 
made. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  the  churchmen  in  New-York  have  ap- 
plied to  have  the  law  of  1814  repealed,  in  1846,  or  at  other  times'? 
A.  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  from  1814  to  1846,  no  such 
application  was  made,  a  period  of  thirty-two  years.  In  1846 
and  1847,  the  Rev.  Thomas  H.  Taylor,  Rev.  Dr.  Anthon,  Rev. 
Jesse  Pound,  the  Hon.  Luther  Bradish,  Robert  B.  Minturn,Esq., 
Frederick  S.  Winston,  Esq.,  Stewart  Brown,  Esq.,  John  De  Wolf, 
Esq.,  Stephen  Cambreling,  Esq.,  did  unite  with  others,  in  an  ap- 
plication to  the  Legislature  to  repeal  the  act  of  1814. 

Q.  Were  the  church  mortgages,  as  they  are  called,  reported 
as  capital  in  your  report  of  1854?  A.  They  were  reported  as 
church  mortgages  on  which  no  interest  was  collected.  If  they 
had  not  been  reported  as  property,  it  might  have  been  difficult 
to  protect  the  churches  for  whose  benefit  they  were  taken. 

Q.  Why  then  should  they  not  have  been  reported  in  1856 1 
A.  They  having  been  reported  once,  it  would  answer  that  pur- 
pose, and  they  were  not  asked  for. 

Q.  You  say  in  your  report,  on  page  10,  that  you  have  endea- 
vored to  show  the  condition  of  the  capital  of  Trinity  Church, 
and  have  omitted  to  mention  these  mortgages.  What  is  your 
explanation  of  this?  A.  I  do  not  consider  these  mortgages  any 
portion  of  the  available  capital  of  Trinity  Church. 

Q.  I  ask  you,  if  they  are  not  capital?  A.  I  answer  that  that 
is  a  matter  of  opinion;  I  think  not. 

Q  Was  not  one  of  the  reasons  for  refusing  aid  to  St.  Matthew's 
church  alleged  to  be,  that  her  language  was  not  respectful  ?  A. 
No  sir,  not  that  I  have  Jieard  of. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


279 


Q.  Was  not  the  language  of  the  application,  considered  by 
the  vestry,  imperative,  and  spoken  of  as  being  so  ?  A.  I  think  it 
was. 

Q.  Is  not  the  real  estate  of  Trinity  church  worth  more  now 
than  at  any  former  period  1    A.  I  think  it  is. 

Q.  What  is  the  character  of  the  improvements  on  most  of  the 
leased  property  of  Trinity  church?  A  The  property  in  the 
lower  part  of  the  city  is  very  well  improved  j  some  of  the  local- 
ities in  the  upper  part  are  well  improved,  and  others  indiffer- 
ently so.    This  depends  very  much  upon  the  situation. 

Q.  Ai*e  not  most  of  the  buildings  in  the  upper  part  of  the 
city  very  poor  and  inferior?  A.  Many  of  the  buildings  were 
erected  a  long  time  ago,  and  do  not  compare  favorably  with  such 
as  are  now  built. 

Q.  You  spoke  of  three  churches  from  which  stipends  were  taken 
away  altogether;  are  not  all  three  such  as  are  called  "  low" 
churches  ?  A.  Stipends  were  given  by  the  corporation  of  Tri- 
nity church,  with  the  intention  of  providing  for,  or  contributing 
towards  the  salary  of  the  minister;  and  in  all  cases  where  the 
congregations  are  sufficiently  wealthy  to  provide  liberally  for 
their  rectors,  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church  has  considered  it  a 
duty  to  withdraw  the  stipends,  without  reference  to  the  party 
character  of  the  congregations,  or  rector.  The  three  churches 
named  in  the  question,  are  supposed  to  belong  to  what  is  called 
the  "  low"  church  party. 

Adjourned  to  10  A.  M.,  to-morrow. 


Tuesday,  Feh.  24,  1857. 
Present — The  Senate  committee,  Messrs.  Spencer  Noxon,  and 
Ramsey.    Counsel  as  before. 

This  meeting  of  the  committee  was  mainly  devoted  to  making 
such  verbal  alterations  in  the  testimony  as  had  been  deemed 
necessary  by  the  counsel  for  Trinity  Church  to  fully  present  the 


280 


REPORT  or  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


meaning  of  the  several  witnesses  testifying.  The  several  altera- 
tions were  assented  to  by  the  committee. 


Wednesday,  February  25. 
Richard  H.  Ogden  called  and  sworn : 

Q.  Are  you  the  clerk  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Have  you  made  search  for  the  poll  list  of  voters  at  the 
vestry  elections  held  prior  to  1814  ?  A.  I  have  made  search  and 
cannot  find  any.  I  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  whether  they 
were  preserved  at  as  early  a  date  as  that. 

By  the  committee : 

Q.  Have  you  made  search  since  1814  ?   A.  I  have. 

Q.  Do  you  find  any  lists  on  file  1    A.  None  prior  to  1846. 

William  S.  De  Zeng,  called  and  sworn : 

Q.  As  agent  of  Trinity  Church,  did  you  apply  to  the  commit- 
tee, in  the  city  of  New- York,  for  a  copy  of  the  testimony  taken 
by  them,  after  the  testimony  was  closed?  A.  I  was  requested 
by  Mr.  Dunscomb,  the  Comptroller,  to  apply  for  a  copy 
about  the  time  the  committee  were  done  taking  testimony 
ny.  After  the  request  was  made,  I  saw  both  Mr.  Noxon  and 
Mr.  Ramsey,  and  asked  them  for  a  copy  of  the  testimony.  They 
said  there  was  no  objection  to  our  having  a  copy.  I  then  went 
to  the  clerk  of  the  committee  and  asked  him  if  he  would  furnish 
a  copy,  we  paying  for  it.  He  declined;  said  he  could  not  do  it 
without  the  authority  of  Mr.  Spencer.  I  then  saw  Mr.  Spencer, 
and  Mr.  Spencer  said  he  could  not  authorise  it,,  and  thought  it 
would  be  improper  until  the  committee  should  make  a  report.  I 
told  Mr.  Spencer  if  a  copy  could  be  made  we  would  pay  lor  it. 

The  counsel  for  Trinity  Church  here  produced  an  affidavit  of 
service  of  a  subpoena  to  appear  and  testify,  upon  the  Rev.  Thos. 
H.  Taylor,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Henry  Anthon,  D.  D.,  Luther  Bradish, 
and  Stewart  Brown,  on  the  9th  day  of  February,  instant,  and  that 
they  failed  to  appear. 


ON  AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


281 


Counsel  for  Church  here  closed. 

The  chairman  of  the  committee  presented  the  following  let- 
ters from  persons  who  had  been  subpoenaed,  but  had  failed  to 
attend : 

New- York,  Feb.  10,  1857. 
To  the  Hon.  Mark  Spencer,  James  Noxon  and  J.  H.  Ramsey, 

Committee^  Sfc,  Albany. 

Sirs — At  5  o'clock  this  evening  I  received  your  summons  in 
the  matter  of  Trinity  Church,  requiring  me  to  attend  before  you 
on  the  121h  day  of  February  instant,  at  9  o'clock  a.m.,  at  the 
rooms  of  the  committee  in  the  capitol  in  the  city  of  Albany,  to 
testify  and  give  evidence  before  you  in  relation  to  the  matters 
referred  to  you. 

While  I  entertain  the  highest  respect  for  your  committee,  and 
for  the  authority  by  which  you  act,  yet  in  the  present  condition 
of  the  communications  between  this  city  and  Albany,  the 
inclemency  of  the  season,  my  advanced  age,  and  the  state  of  my 
health,  which  is  not  good,  a  •ompliance  witli  the  requirements  of 
your  summons  would  be  extremely  difficult,  if  not  quite  imprac- 
ticable. I  trust,  therefore,  that  it  may  not  be  deemed,  under 
the  circumstances,  an  unreasonable  indulgence,  when  I  respect- 
fully ask  to  be  excused  from  a  personal  attendance  before  your 
committee;  and  in  lieu  thereof  to  be  permitted  to  answer  on 
paper  any  cross  or  explanatory  interrogatories  which  any  party 
interested  may  desire  to  put  to  me.  This  I  shall  cheerfully  do, 
even  although  it  may  involve  a  greater  labor  than  a  personal 
examination  under  the  circumstances  would  do. 

Under  present  circumstances  were  I,  at  every  inconvenience 
and  risk,  to  attempt  a  compliance  with  the  requirement  of  your 
summons,  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  attend  before  you  in 
person  at  the  time  indicated  by  you.  1  venture,  therefore, 
respectfully  but  confidently  to  hope  that  the  indulgence  I  ask  in 
this  case  maybe  accorded  by  the  committee.  In  which  hope  I 
remain,  sirs,  with  the  highest  respect. 

Tour  obedient  servant, 

L.  BRADISH. 


282 


KEPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE 


New-York,  Feb.  lUh,  1857. 

Hon.  Mark  Spencer  : 

Dear  Sir — I  received  j'esterday  afternoon  a  summons  to  attend 
before  the  committee,  of  which  you  are  the  chairman,  on  the 
12th  inst.,  to  give  evidence  in  relation  to  the  matter  of  Trinity 
Church.  Having  but  just  been  relieved  from  a  severe  cold,  I 
feel  a  great  reluctance,  especially  at  this  season,  and  in  the 
present  state  of  tlie  roads,  to  encounter  the  fatigue  and  exposure 
of  a  journey  to  Albany.  I  beg  leave,  therefore,  respectfully  to 
place  my  case  before  your  committee,  in  the  hope  that  they  will 
excuse  me  from  attending;  and  I  do  so  with  the  less  hestitation, 
as  my  evidence  was  given  in  full  when  the  committee  were  in 
session  in  this  city.  Most  respectfully  yours, 

H.  ANTHON. 


80-1  Broadway,  New-York,  ? 
February  16,  1857.  S 

Hon.  Mark  Spencer,  Chairman,  Sfc: 

My  Dear  Sir — Absence  from  home,  and  a  pressure  of  unavoid- 
able engagements,  have  prevented  me  from  making  an  earlier 
acknowledgment  of  the  receipt  of  a  summons  from  the  special 
committee  of  the  Senate,  in  the  matter  of  Trinity  Church,  requir- 
ing me  to  attend  and  give  evidence  before  the  committee  on  the 
12th  inst.  With  the  most  perfect  respect  for  the  committee, 
and  with  an  earnest  desire  to  meet  all  their  requirements,  it  was 
yet  entirely  out  of  my  power  to  attend  at  Albany  as  a  witness  at 
the  time  specified. 

While  I  thus  freely  and  sincerely  express  my  respect  for  your 
committee,  and  my  regret  at  not  being  permitted  to  aid  them  as 
I  best  could  in  their  important  labors,  yet  you  must  permit  me 
to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  none  of  this  respect,  and  nothing  of 
this  regret  is  intended  by  me,  to  extend  to  any  liired  agents  of 
Trinity,  at  whose  instance,  as  I  take  it,  the  summons  now  be- 
fore me  was  issued. 

During  the  meetings  of  your  committee  in  this  city  every 
opportunity  was  afforded  to  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church, 
either  to  summon  witnesses  or  to  propose  cross-interrogatories  to 


ON  AFFAIRS   OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


283 


every  witness  before  your  committee;  and  if  in  their  supercili- 
ousness or  reckless  negligence  they  did  not  avail  themselves  of 
their'  privilege,  the  consequences  must  rest  upon  themselves. 
The  vexatious  course  they  are  now  pursuing,  of  attempting  to 
drag  gentlemen  from  their  business  and  tlieir  homes  at  this  in- 
clement season  of  the  year,  from  whom  tliey  well  know  that 
they  cannot  obtain  one  word  of  evidence  in  any  way  useful  to 
Trinity  Cliurch,  has  no  other  earthly  object  than  to  gain  time, 
and  thus  to  defeat  by  postponing  one  of  the  most  salutary  mea- 
sures of  reform  that  has  ever  claimed  the  attention  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  State. 

With  my  renewed  assurance  of  the  most  perfect  respect  for 
your  committee,  permit  me  to  subscribe  myself,  Mr,  Chairman, 
Your  friend  and  obedient  servant. 
Very  truly, 

THOMAS  HOUSE  TAYLOR, 
Rector  of  Grace  Church  in  the  city  of  JYew-  York. 

The  following  letter  w^as  presented  by  the  counsel  for  Trinity 
corporation,  and  ordered  filed  with  those  previously  received. 

"  New- York,  February  24,  1857. 

Wm.  E.  Dunscomb,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir. — I  have  received  your  note  of  yesterday,  asking  me 
again  to  go  up  to  Albany.  For  myself  I  cannot  see  its  impor- 
tance ;  and  with  reference  to  my  answer  that  I  '  have  been  on 
a  committee  to  examine  the  annual  report,  and  examination  of 
the  accounts  of  the  comptroller  ;  they  have  access  to  all  tlie 
books  referred  to  in  the  annual  report,  and  such  only.'  Our 
committee  at  this  examination  called  on  Mr.  Rogers,  the  clerk, 
for  the  books  and  vouchers,  who  furnished  tlie  same  and  no 
others,  because  no  others  were  called  for  by  the  committee  ;  and 
that  is  what  I  mean  by  '  and  such  only.'  And  by  going  to 
Albany  I  could  give  no  other  explanation,  and  to  my  mind  no 
other  one  is  required.  Did  I  suppose  that  I  could  be  of  any  use  to 
the  committee  by  going  up  to  Albany,  I  would  try  to  go  up,  yet, 
as  I  wrote  Mr.  Ogdeu,  it  would  be  at  not  a  little  personal  incon- 
venience ;  and,  therefore,  hope  that  you  will  excuse  me,  and 
oblige 

Very  truly  yours, 

CYRUS  CURTISS." 
Adjourned  to  10  A.  M.,  Saturday  morning. 


ARGUMENTS 


OF 


THE  COUNSEL  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH, 


BEFORE  THE 


C.  VAN  BENTHUYSEN,  PRINTER,  ALBANY, 
No.  407  Broadway. 

1857. 


After  tlie  testimony  was  closed,  Mr.  Gouverneue  M.  Ogdbn, 
one  of  the  vestry,  addressed  tlie  committee  of  the  Senate,  on  the 
affairs  of  Trinity  Church,  as  follows: 

Mr.  Chairman  :  I  appear  before  the  committee  as  one  of  the 
vestry  of  Trinity  Chui-ch,  to  speak  to  the  questions  o>f  fact  that 
are  involved  in  this  controversy  as  touching  the  character  and 
good  faith  of  myself  and  my  associates. 

But  before  commertcing  this  argument,  I  beg  leave  to  protest, 
most  respectfully,  in  the  name  of  the  corporation  which  I  repre- 
sent, against  the  authority  of  the  Senate  or  of  this  committee  to 
entertain  the  investigation  of  which  these  proceedings  form  a 
part,  on  the  ground  that  no  information  expected  to  be  derived 
from  it  can  be  necessary  to  guide  the  discretion  of  the  Legislature 
in  any  matter  within  its  powers;  for  the  act  of  1814,  to  which 
these  proceedings  are  supposed  to  have  reference,  forms  a  part  of 
the  charter  of  Trinity  Church  and  cannot  be  altered,  modified  or 
repealed  without  its  consent  •  and  these  proceedings  are  not 
instituted  at  the  instance  of  any  party  who  has  an  interest  in  the 
questions  involved  ;  and  on  the  ground  also  that  investigations 
of  this  kind  are  productive  of  great  injury  to  ecclesiastical  cor- 
porations by  involving  them  in  great  expense  and  engaging  them 
in  litigations  that  properly  belong  to  the  courts,  and  which  are 
here  conducted  without  the  restraints  and  without  the  protection 
afforded  by  the  rules  of  legal  investigation. 

I  say  this,  gentlemen,  without  intending  disrespect  to  the 
committee  and  merely  lest  perchance  the  corporation  should  be 
involved  in  any  admission  through  my  silence. 

There  are  important  questions  involved,  and  if  I  speak  freely 
and  warmly  I  shall  at  all  events  endeavor  to  say  nothing  not 
called  for  by  the  performance  of  my  duty,  and'  nothing  offensive 
to  any  which  shall  not  be  necessary  to  exhibit  tlie  motives  which 
have  actuated,  and  the  credit  which  is  due  to  the  parties  whose 
names  are  involved  in  this  controvei-sy  as  witnesses  or  actors. 


4 


This  is  not  a  new  thing,  and  it  is  necessary  in  order  to  explain 
its  present  position  to  refer  to  a  few  liistorical  facts.  The  original 
charter  of  this  corporation  was  granted  in  the  year  1697,  creating 
a  single  church  corporation  with  one  rector,  one  body  of  church 
wardens  and  vestrymen,  and  one  congregation.  The  church  has 
always  contended,  from  the  time  at  which  any  question  could 
arise,  that  under  this  charter  no  persons  were  corporators  except 
members  of  the  congregations  of  Trinity  Church.  Then  follows 
the  law  of  17''4,  now  repealed,  which,  although  it  made  some 
alteration  in  the  powers  of  the  corporation,  did  not  add  to  or 
diminish  the  qualifications  of  corporators.  Next  the  law  of 
1784,  as  the  church  has  always  contended,  did  not  change  the 
rights  of  corporators  so  as  to  include  any  others  than  members  of 
the  congregations  of  Trinity  Church. 

These  are  principles,  stated  very  briefly  upon  which  th-e  vestry 
of  Trinity  Church  have  always  acted. 

In  1813,  Trinity  Church  made  an  application  to  the  Lesjislature 
upon  which  the  act  entitled  "an  act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  cor- 
poration of  Trmity  Church  in  New-York,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses" was  passed,  on  the  24th  of  Januery  1814,  by  which  it  was 
declared  that  only  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity 
Church,  with  certain  other  qualifications  in  the  second  section  of 
that  act  specified,  should  be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  annual  elec- 
tions for  church  w^ardens  and  vestrymen  of  the  said  corporation. 

Now,  certainly,  there  were  persons  who  thought  that  the  con- 
struction which  I  have  stated,  the  vestry  put  upon  the  original 
charter  and  act  of  1784,^was  not  sound.  A  class  of  persons  who 
were  interested  in  maintaining  a  different  construction  came 
into  existence  when  the  first  church  corporation  in  the  city  of 
New-York,  independent  of  Trinity,  was  created.  St.  Mark's 
Church,  as  would  appear  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Bradish,  page 
98  of  the  first  report  of  this  committee,  existed  as  early  as  1798; 
and  there  were  nine  such  churches  in  1814  as  appears  from  the 
testimony  of  Dr.  Berrian.  Yet  the  practical  construction  was 
such,  that  down  to  1814  no  persons  who  did  not  belong  to  the 
congregations  of  Trinity  Church  were  ever  permitted  to  vote  at 
the  vestry  elections.    This  is  amply  proved  by  the  testimony. 

The  statements  on  the  other  side  on  this  point  are  very  loose. 
The  only  reference  to  it  that  occurs,  is  in  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Bradish,  who  says  on  page  95,  that  the  great  body  of  episcopalians 


5 


in  the  city  of  New-York  were  not  only  deprived  by  tlie  act  of 
1814  of  valuable  franchises  previously  granted  to  and  enjoyed  by 
them,  but  virtually  divested  of  their  right  of  property. 

On  the  other  hand  Mr.  Verplanck  and  Dr.  Berrian,  who  were 
members  of  this  corporation  in  1811,  testify  that  at  an  election  held 
in  1812,  the  first  attempt  was  made  by  members  of  other  corpo- 
rations to  vote  at  the  Easter  elections  of  Trinity  Church,  on  the 
occasion  of  some  great  excitement  then  prevailing,  and  they  also 
say  that  they  were  intimate  with  other  gentlemen,  members  of 
the  corporation  at  that  time,  older  than  themselves,  who  are  now 
deceased,  and  that  they  never  heard  of  such  parties  ever  having 
been  admitted  to  vote. 

We  have,  moreover,  produced  in  evidence  the  resolution  of  the 
vestry,  passed  at  about  the  time  of  this  occurrence,  in  which 
after  reciting  that  the  vestry  had  been  informed  that  a  claim  to 
vote  at  the  elections  of  Trinity  Church  had  been  set  up  by  persons 
who  were  members  of  other  church  corporations,  it  was  declared 
in  substance,  that  no  one  should  be  admitted  to  vote  unless  they 
were  members  of  the  congregations  of  Trinity  Church. 

Other  cotemporaneous  documents  establish  the  same  position. 
In  the  application  of  the  vestry  to  the  Legislature  for  the  pas- 
sage of  the  law  of  1814,  it  is  stated  that  no  members  of  other 
church  corporations  have  a  right  to  vote  at  their  elections,  or 
regulate  the  affairs  of  Trinity  Church;  that  "  nevertheless  a  few 
individuals  belonging  to  such  separate  corporations,  have  recently 
pretended,  to  claim  that  right,  and  at  he  last  annual  election  of 
church  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  Cliurch,  held  in  the 
month  of  March,  1812,  two  or  three  persons,  being  members  of 
incorporated  churches,  separate  and  distinct  from  your  petitioners, 
presented  themselves  as  voters,  but  their  votes,  under  an  ordi- 
nance previously  passed  by  your  petitioners,  were  rejected;  and 
no  measures  have  been  yet  taken  to  enforce  or  establish  the 
right  so  claimed.'' 

In  Col.  Troup's  pamphlet,  which  has  been  quoted  by  Mr.  Bra- 
dish,  it  is  stated  that  no  members  of  other  congregations  claimed, 
prior  to  1812,  and  that  in  March  of  that  year,  several  persons 
offered  themselves  as  voters,  being  members  of  other  corporations, 
one  of  whom  instituted  a  suit,  and  the  same  person  again  offered 
to  vote  in  the  succeeding  April.  (See  page  12  of  that  pamphlet.) 
There  is  no  evidence  as  to  what  became  of  this  suit.  It 
was  probably  dropped,  or  a  decision  upon  it  would  be  found. 


6 


These  cotemporaneous  documents  have  been  frequently  referred 
to  in  controversies  before  the  Legislature,  respecting  applications 
for  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814,  made  in  184(j-47,  to  which  as  it 
appears  in  the  testimony,  the  principal  witnesses  against  Trinity 
Church  in  this  matter  were  parties.  This  statement  is  confident- 
ly submitted  as  conclusive  proof  that  down  to  the  year  1814  no 
pei'sons  were  ever  admitted  to  vote  at  the  elections  of  Trinity 
Church  except  they  were  members  of  the  congregations  of  its 
churches ;  and  there  can  be  no  controversy  about  the  truth  of  the 
position,  that  since  1814  no  such  persons  have  ever  been  admit- 
ted or  allowed  to  exercise  that  right. 

This  appears  abundantly  from  the  testimony,  both  of  Dr.  Ber- 
rian  and  Mr.  Verplanck. 

In  1813,  Trinity  Church  made  the  application  to  the  Legislature 
which  i-esulted  in  the  passage  of  the  act  of  the  following  year. 
They  asked  that  the  Legislature  would  obviate  and  settle  the  ques- 
tions that  might  arise  in  consequence  of  incorporating  other  Episco- 
pal congregations  in  the  city,  and  they  asked  it  that  strife  and  liti- 
gation might  be  prevented  In  1814  the  law  was  passed,  declaring 
that  none  but  members  of  the  congregations  of  Trinity  Church 
were  corporators.  This  state  of  things  remained  undisturbed  until 
1846.  Then  and  in  1847,  applications  were  made  for  the  repeal 
of  the  last  mentioned  law;  in  1846  in  the  Senate  and  in  1847  in 
the  Assembly.  In  both  cases  the  applications  were  unsuccessful. 
In  the  last  of  these,  the  matter  was  argued  by  counsel  of  high 
standing  on  both  sides,  before  the  judiciary  committee  of  the 
House,  who  unanimously  decided  against  the  repeal,  and  in  a  re- 
port of  singular  ability,  recommended  that  the  prayer  of  the 
petitioners  ought  not  to  be  granted.  This  recommendation  was 
unanimously  adopted  by  the  Assembly. 

Thirty-three  years  had  then  elapsed  since  the  passage  of  the 
law.  Now  ten  years  more  have  passed.  The  object  of  the  act 
was  accomplished,  and  during  all  that  time  peace  and  quietness 
prevailed  in  the  episcopal  church  in  New- York,  except  when  the 
agitation  of  this  question  of  repeal  stirred  the  waters  of  controversy. 
Now  the  contest  is  renewed,  but  not  as  before.  Then  the  par- 
ties seeking  the  passage  of  the  measure  now  sought,  came  for- 
w^ard  openly,  with  an  avowed  object.  Now  no  one  appears  as  in- 
terested in  any  stage  of  these  proceedings.  There  is  no  memorial. 
There  is  no  proof  of  notice  of  an  application  for  a  repeal  as  the 
statute  requires.    Every  step  is  tlie  act  of  the  Senate. 


7 


Let  me  trace  these  proceedings.  It  is  necessary  to  exhibit  the 
actors,  their  motives  and  objects,  and  necessary  to  show  the  credit 
that  is  due  to  tlie  testimony.  The  commencement  of  this  pro- 
ceeding was  tlie  original  resolutions  of  the  Senate,  passed,  on  the 
15th  of  April,  1855.  There  was  no  application  or  representation 
as  the  foundation  of  these  resolutions.  They  were  passed  in  the 
hurry  of  business,  at  the  close  of  the  session.  I  will  notice  shortly 
some  of  the  matters  asked  for  by  them.  Who  in  Albany  could 
have  known  that  Trinity  Church  had  never  built  a  free  church  ? 
Who  could  have  known  that  a  return  of  the  churches  built  with- 
in the  five  years  next  before  the  passage  of  the  resolutions  would 
show  that  Trinity  chapel  was  built  within  that  time  at  great  cost  ? 
Who  in  Albany  could  have  known  that  to  disclose  what  leeble 
churches  had  been  aided  in  the  same  five  years  would,  probably, 
exhibit  a  comparatively  small  amount  expended  for  the  benefit  of 
such  churches  while  Trinity  chapel  was  building?  Or  who  in 
that  city  could  have  told  that  the  appropriations  to  institutions  of  ^ 
charity,  benevolenee  and  learning,  made  within  the  three  years 
next  preceding  the  passage  of  the  resolutions,  would  just  escape 
the  important  and  meritorious  gift  in  favor  of  Hobart  Free  Col- 
lege at  Geneva,  with  the  condition  that  it  should  be  called  by  that 
name  and  be  forever  free  1 

These  features  show  a  knowledge  and  design  of  interested  par- 
ties to  select  for  the  prejudice  of  Trinity  Church  the  time  within 
which  and  the  objects  to  which,  the  return  would  show  the  least, 
and  they  are  the  obvious  result  of  a  laborious  collection  in  New- 
York  of  rumors,  and  suspicions,  and  the  complaints  of  disappointed 
applicants. 

Again,  all  the  gifts  required  to  be  returned  are  those  made  to 
churches  in  the  city  of  New- York.  Why  ?  Because  the  persons  who 
are  interested  in  and  have  been  applicants  for  the  repeal  of  the  act 
of  1814  have  always  contended,  and  must  always  contend,  that  the 
property  of  Trinity  Church  is  held  in  trust,  for  the  inhabitants  of 
the  city  of  New-York  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  This  points  out  the  source  of  the  resolutions.  There- 
port  of  the  Chui-ch  stated  its  gifts  made  at  other  times  and  to 
Churches  and  to  institutions  situated  in  the  country  in  various 
parts  of  the  State.  jYoiy,  the  witnesses  examined  in  New- York, 
state  that  they  have  no  objections  to  gifts  to  the  country;  yet 
hitherto  they  have  always  declared  such  objections,  and  if  there 
be  such  a  trust  as  they  contend  for,  it  necessarily  follows  that  the 


6 


These  cotemporaneous  documents  have  been  frequently  referred 
to  in  controversies  before  the  Legislature,  respecting  applications 
for  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814,  made  in  184G-47,  to  which  as  it 
appears  in  the  testimony,  the  principal  witnesses  against  Trinity 
Church  in  this  matter  were  parties.  This  statement  is  confident- 
ly submitted  as  conclusive  proof  that  down  to  the  year  1814  no 
persons  were  ever  admitted  to  vote  at  the  elections  of  Trinity 
Church  except  they  were  members  of  the  congregations  of  its 
churches;  and  there  can  be  no  controversy  about  the  truth  of  the 
position,  that  since  1814  no  such  persons  have  ever  been  admit- 
ted or  allowed  to  exercise  that  right. 

This  appears  abundantly  from  the  testimony,  both  of  Dr.  Ber- 
rian  and  Mr.  Verplanck. 

In  1813,  Trinity  Church  made  the  application  to  the  Legislature 
which  resulted  in  the  passage  of  the  act  of  the  following  year. 
They  asked  that  the  Legislature  would  obviate  and  settle  the  ques- 
tions that  might  arise  in  consequence  of  incorporating  other  Episco- 
pal congregations  in  the  city,  and  they  asked  it  that  strife  and  liti- 
gation might  be  prevented  In  1814  the  law  was  passed,  declaring 
that  none  but  members  of  the  congregations  of  Trinity  Church 
were  corporators.  This  state  of  things  remained  undisturbed  until 
1846.  Then  and  in  1847,  applications  were  made  for  the  repeal 
of  the  last  mentioned  law;  in  1846  in  the  Senate  and  in  1847  in 
the  Assembly.  In  both  cases  the  applications  were  unsuccessful. 
In  the  last  of  these,  the  matter  was  argued  by  counsel  of  high 
standing  on  both  sides,  before  the  judiciary  committee  of  the 
House,  who  unanimously  decided  against  the  repeal,  and  in  a  re- 
port of  singular  ability,  recommended  that  the  prayer  of  the 
petitioners  ought  not  to  be  granted.  Tliis  recommendation  was 
unanimously  adopted  by  the  Assembly. 

Thirty-three  years  had  then  elapsed  since  the  passage  of  the 
law.  Now  ten  years  more  have  passed.  The  object  of  the  act 
was  accomplished,  and  during  all  that  time  peace  and  quietness 
prevailed  in  the  episcopal  church  in  New- York,  except  when  the 
agitation  of  this  question  of  repeal  stirred  the  waters  of  controversy. 
Now  the  contest  is  renewed,  but  not  as  before.  Then  the  25ar- 
ties  seeking  the  passage  of  the  measure  now  sought,  came  for- 
W^ard  openly,  with  an  avowed  object.  Now  no  one  appears  as  in- 
terested in  any  stage  of  these  proceedings.  There  is  no  memorial. 
There  is  no  proof  of  notice  of  an  application  for  a  repeal  as  tlie 
statute  requires.    Every  step  is  the  act  of  the  Senate. 


7 


Let  me  trace  these  proceedings.  It  is  necessary  to  exhibit  the 
actors,  tlieir  motives  and  objects,  and  necessary  to  show  the  credit 
that  is  due  to  tlie  testimony.  The  commencement  of  this  pro- 
ceeding was  the  original  resolutions  of  the  Senate,  passed  on  the 
15th  of  April,  1855.  There  was  no  application  or  representation 
as  the  foundation  of  these  resolutions.  They  were  passed  in  the 
hurry  of  business,  at  the  close  of  the  session.  I  will  notice  shortly 
some  of  the  matters  asked  for  by  them.  Who  in  Albany  could 
have  known  that  Trinity  Church  had  never  built  a  fi'ee  church  7 
Who  could  have  known  that  a  return  of  the  churches  built  with- 
in the  live  years  next  before  the  passage  of  the  resolutions  would 
show  that  Trinity  chapel  was  built  within  that  time  at  great  cost  ? 
Who  in  Albany  could  have  known  that  to  disclose  what  feeble 
churches  had  been  aided  in  the  same  five  years  would,  probably, 
exhibit  a  comparatively  small  amount  expended  for  the  benefit  of 
such  churches  while  Trinity  chapel  was  building  1  Or  who  in 
that  city  could  have  told  that  the  appropriations  to  institutions  of  ^ 
charity,  benevolence  and  learning,  made  within  the  three  years 
next  preceding  the  passage  of  the  resolutions,  would  just  escape 
the  important  and  meritorious  gift  in  favor  of  Hobart  Free  Col- 
lege at  Geneva,  witli  the  condition  that  it  should  be  called  by  that 
name  and  be  forever  free  1 

These  features  show  a  knowledge  and  design  of  interested  par- 
ties to  select  for  the  prejudice  of  Trinity  Church  the  time  within 
which  and  the  objects  to  which,  the  return  would  show  the  least, 
and  they  are  the  obvious  result  of  a  laborious  collection  in  New- 
York  of  rumors,  and  suspicions,  and  the  complaints  of  disappointed 
applicants. 

Again,  all  the  gifts  required  to  be  returned  are  those  made  to 
churches  in  the  city  of  New- York.  Why  1  Because  the  persons  who 
are  interested  in  and  have  been  applicants  for  the  repeal  of  the  act 
of  1814  have  always  contended,  and  must  always  contend,  that  the 
property  of  Trinity  Church  is  held  in  trust,  for  the  inhabitants  of 
the  city  of  New-York  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  This  points  out  the  source  of  the  resolutions.  There- 
port  of  the  Chiu-ch  stated  its  gifts  made  at  other  times  and  to 
Churches  and  to  institutions  situated  in  the  country  in  various 
parts  of  the  State.  JYow,  the  witnesses  examined  in  New- York, 
state  that  they  have  no  objections  to  gifts  to  the  country;  yet 
hitherto  they  have  always  declared  such  objections,  and  if  there 
be  such  a  trust  as  they  contend  for,  it  necessarily  follows  that  the 


8 


gifts  hitherto  made  to  the  country  were  all  illegal,  and  if  they 
could  be  admitted  as  corporators,  under  the  construction  which 
they  advocate,  such  gifts  to  the  country  could  never  hereafter  be 
made,  and  the  much  complained  of  mortgages,  wherever  they 
cover  churches  out  of  the  city  of  New-York,  must  be  foreclosed. 

From  these  considerations  it  is  apparent  that  the  resolutions 
of  the  Senate — the  first  step  in  these  proceedings — emanated  from 
interested  parties  in  New- York. 

After  the  rej^ort  of  the  Church  was  made  to  the  Senate,  it  was, 
within  a  few  minutes  of  the  close  of  the  session  of  1856,  without 
a  complaint  or  memorial  from  any  one,  referred  to  this  committee, 
with  authority  "  to  examine  into  the  matters  connected  therewith 
during  the  recess." 

The  committee  came  to  New-York.  It  must  be  acknowledged 
that  there  were  circumstances  which  misled  the  committee.  The 
witnesses  who  presented  themselves  before  them  were  gentle- 
men of  great  respectability  in  position  ;  and  our  own  course 
may  have  tended  further  to  mislead  them.  We  thought  they 
had  no  legal  power,  and  being  aware  of  this,  they  had  the 
impression,  doubtless,  that  we  would  not  appear  before  them 
under  any  circumstances.  In  this,  however,  they  were  in 
error.  For  had  the  vestry  understood  the  nature  of  the  charges 
which  it  was  intended  to  bring  against  them,  they  would  have 
adopted  the  course  they  have  now  pursued.  They  relied  upon  a 
supposed  state  of  things  which  it  now  appears  did  not  exist. 
They  supposed,  and  were  authorized  to  suppose,  that  the  investi- 
gation in  contemplation  was  undertaken  at  the  instance  of  the 
Senate  alone,  and  they  judged  that  the  most  respectful  and  proper 
course  was  for  them  to  leave  the  committee  to  their  own  judg- 
ment, without  interference  or  suggestion  from  the  vestry,  and  to 
hold  themselves  in  readiness,  as  they  did,  to  furnish  any  informa- 
tion that  might  be  desired  by  the  committee.  They  supposed,  also, 
that  the  committee  would  confine  themselves  to  the  matters  of  the 
report  of  the  church,  and  they  were  confident  that  the  statements 
in  that  report  could  not  be  materially  controverted.  There  was, 
in  truth,  no  contradiction  of  that  report  in  any  material  point,  ex- 
cepting as  to  the  amount  stated  in  the  report  to  have  been  given  for 
the  benefit  of  St.  George's  Church  in  Beekman-street;  and  the  re- 
port in  this  respect  has  been  vindicated  by  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
Berrian.  They  relied,  also,  upon  the  committee  that  they  would 
take  none  but  legal  testimony.    But  in  all  these  respects,  as  the 


9 


sequel  shows,  the  vestry  acted  in  error.  The  investigation  was 
not  at  the  instance  of  tlie  Senate  alone.  The  evidence  was  not 
regular,  but  was  made  up  of  hear-say  testimony  of  the  grossest 
kind,  of  rumors  and  suspicions,  and  of  opinions  of  witnesses  upon 
matters  as  to  which  their  opinions  were  entirely  inadmissible  ; 
and  the  committee  went  out  of  the  report,  and  under  the  general 
authority  comprehended  in  the  words,  "  to  examine  into  the 
matters  connected  therewith" — words  calculated  to  comprehend 
everything  and  give  notice  of  nothing — charges  of  partiality,  of 
the  exercise  of  a  control  over  the  oj^inions  of  clergy  and  laity, 
through  grants,  of  mismanagement  and  concealment  in  the  con- 
duct of  the  internal  affairs  of  the  corporation,  and  a  want  of 
vitality  and  interest  in  the  ministrations  of  the  Church,  were 
entertained.  It  is  manifest  the  Church  had  no  notice  of  sucli 
charges  and  could  not  anticipate  them. 

Now,  for  the  first  time,  appear  the  real  actors  in  all  this. 
They  are  the  Rev.  Thomas  House  Taylor,  Rev.  Henry  Anthon, 
Rev.  Jesse  Pound,  Luther  Bradish,  Robert  B.  Minturn,  Tred- 
erick  S.  Winston,  Stewart  Brown,  John  D.  Wolf,  and  Stephen 
Carahreling.  These  are  now  the  most  important  witnesses.  In 
1846-47  they  were  open  applicants  for  the  repeal  of  the  law,  the 
repeal  of  which  is  now  sought.  Then  they  had  counsel.  Now 
counsel  was  equally  necessary,  for  it  was  essential  that  the  legal 
positions  contended  for  should  be  presented  to  the  committee. 
There  could  be  no  avowed  counsel,  because  tliere  was  no  avowed 
party.  So  an  expedient  must  be  fallen  upon  to  remedy  this  defect. 
I  can  well  imagine  the  conference  at  which  the  method  of  pro- 
ceeding was  resolved  upon,  at  which  it  became  apparent  that  the 
legal  positions  must  be  presented  in  some  form,  and  if  not  by 
one  appearing  as  counsel  then  by  a  witness  ;  and  I  can  imagine 
Mr.  Cambreling  as  objecting  to  taking  the  part,  both  because  he 
is  too  good  a  lawyer  and  because  he  was  unwilling  to  appear  in 
that  position;  and  that  Mr.  Bradish  volunteeied  to  act  in  that 
capacity  the  rather  because  it  was  the  post  of  pre-eminence. 
The  result  is  that  controverted  positions,  disproved  over  and 
over  again,  passed  upon  after  careful  arguments  by  counsel  far 
abler  than  Mr.  Bradish,  before  the  committee  of  the  house  of 
Assembly  in  1847,  and  overruled  by  their  decision  then,  are 
expected  to  derive  new  efl&cacy  supported  by  an  oath,  when  pre- 
sented at  this  day  as  the  ground  for  the  decision  of  the  Senate. 

By  these  witnesses,  injurious  charges  were  brought  out,  and 
some  rumors  reaching  us  that  led  us  to  suppose  that  it  might  be 


10 


important  tliat  we  should  see  the  testimony  thus  elicited.  We 
applied  to  the  chairman  of  this  committee  ( I  am  speaking  from 
the  evidence)  for  a  copy  of  the  testimony,  offering  to  pay  the 
expense.  It  was  refused,  and  we  were  told  that  it  could  not  be 
allowed  until  after  the  testimony  had  been  reported  to  the  Senate. 
Then  came  the  report  to  the  Senate,  and  until  after  that  had  been 
presented,  the  vestry  knew  nothing  of  the  testimony,  nor  of  the 
grave  charges  that  were  supported  by  it. 

I  have  gone  through  this  statement,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  order  to 
show  the  concealment  used  by  the  parties  instigating  this  move- 
ment, which  I  might  almost  call  fraudulent,  which  has  charac- 
terized these  wliole  proceedings.  In  fairness,  they  ought  to  have 
been  commenced  by  a  memorial  stating  the  charges  made  and  the 
action  sought;  instead  of  that,  the  purpose  of  the  first  applica- 
tion to  the  Senate  was  concealed  ;  the  after  reference  was  so 
made  as  entirely  to  cover  its  real  object,  and  the  investigation 
was  so  conducted  and  its  results  were  so  kept  from  us  as  to  give, 
without  any  power  on  our  part  to  prevent  it,  the  advantage  to 
the  real  but  unavowed  parties,  of  possessing  the  public  mind 
completely  with  an  opinion  most  prejudicial  to  the  character  and 
management  of  the  vestry  of  the  church  ;  by  means  of  which  it 
cannot  be  doubted  it  was  hoped  to  procure  the  immediate  pas- 
sage of  an  act  repealing  the  law  of  1814. 

The  honorable  Senator,  [Mr.  Noxon,]  a  member  of  this  commit- 
tee, arrested  this  by  procuring  us  an  opportunity  to  be  heard 
although  after  the  report  of  this  committee  had  been  made.  We 
thank  him.  We  have  availed  ourselves  of  this  opportunity  for 
the  justification  of  our  reputations,  and  because  we  would  not 
see  the  institution  of  which  we  are  trustees  deprived  of  its  rights 
througli  unfounded  accusations  against  its  management.  But  I 
ask  the  committee  to  enter  upon  the  consideration  of  the  testi- 
mony, bearing  in  mind  that  the  principal  witnesses  are  the  real 
actors,  are  the  getters-up  of  the  testimony,  and  of  the  whole  case 
by  means  of  which  they  hope  to  accomplish  the  object  they  have 
in  view.  That  they  have  testified  directly  for  themselves,  and 
have  attempted  by  their  own  oaths  to  substantiate  allegations 
through  which  they  desire  to  succeed. 

Tlae  first  point  of  the  evidence  to  which  I  would  call  your 
attention,  is  as  to  the  assessed  value  of  the  real  estate  of  Trinity 
Church.  I  understood  tlie  committee  to  intimate  that  tliey  were 
satisfied  that  the  reasons  given  by  the  vestry  for  the  return  of  the 


11 


assessed  valuations,  as  stated  in  their  supplemental  report,  were 
sufficient.  I  will  only  then  say  that  as  the  resolutions  of  the  Senate 
required  the  vestry  to  report  the  "  estimated  value  of  each  lot," 
and  as  they  have  reported  the  estimated  value,  according  to  the 
official  estimate  of  sworn  officers,  and  as,  moreover,  a  new  esti- 
mate of  their  own  could  not  be  made  without  differences  of  opi- 
nion of  members  of  the  vestry,  of  such  a  character  as  to  make  such 
estimate  entirely  unreliable  ;  and  as  further,  the  vestry  expressly 
stated  that  the  estimate  they  returned  was  that  made  by  oworn 
assessors  of  the  city,  for  the  purposes  of  taxation,  they  are  not 
justly  chargeable  either  with  a  misrepresentation  of  the  value  of 
their  property,  or  with  a  non-compliance,  in  this  respect,  with 
the  requisitions  of  the  Senate.  If,  however,  it  is  deemed  by  this 
committee  material  to  state  the  real  value  of  the  land  of  Trinity 
Church,  whilst  the  vestry  do  not  object  to  its  true  valuation  being 
shown,  they  desire  to  see  no  exaggeration  of  the  value.  I  must 
therefore  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Skidmore  in  connection  with  this  subject.  He  points  out 
clearly  an  error  into  which  the  committee  have  fallen.  I  may 
thus  state  it :  The  committee  have  set  down  the  fee  as  really 
worth  more  than  five  times  that  amount,  which  would  appear  to 
be  its  value  according  to  the  assessor's  estimates.  Now  as  the  in- 
terest of  the  tenants  is  the  present  interest,  and  they  have  until 
the  termination  of  their  leases  the  possession  and  enjoyment  of 
the  land,  if  you  make  the  fee  worth  more,  you  should  make  the 
interest  of  those  tenants  worth  more  in  the  same  proportion. 
Mr.  Skidmore  has  stated  such  a  proportion,  and  has  shown  the 
error  of  the  committee  to  amount  to  the  sum  of  §1,468,105.  It  is 
true  that  to  get  at  the  true  value  of  the  interest  of  the  tenants 
based  upon  the  new  valuations  presented  by  the  committee,  a 
more  complicated  and  accurate  process  must  be  gone  through  with, 
but  the  result  would  not  greatly  vary,  and  my  object  is  rather  to 
point  out  that  the  committee  have  made  an  error  to  a  very  large 
amount,  than  accurately  to  state  that  amount. 

But  we  are  charged  with  a  designed  omission  of  large  items  of 
our  property.  These  are  Church  mortgages  and  the  interest  of  the 
corpoi-ation  in  St.  John's  Park. 

First  Church  mortgages.  I  call  the  attention  of  the  committee 
to  the  important  fact  which  they  seem  to  have  overlooked,  that 
mortgages  of  any  kind  were  not  called  for  by  the  resolutions  of 
the  Senate.  The  vestry,  however,  in  their  report  at  page  7,  made 
a  statement  of  their  productive  property,  intending  to  give,  and 


12 


expressly  stating  they  gave  the  whole  productive  estate  of  Trinity 
Church.  This  was  done,  only — volunteered  as  it  was — as  an 
introduction  to  the  subsequent  passages  in  their  report,  which 
were  intended  to  exhibit  the  revenue  of  the  Church,  as  derived 
from  the  productive  estate  before  mentioned,  in  order  that  the 
expenditui-es  which  must  annually  occur,  might  be  contrasted 
with  that  revenue,  showang  a  necessary  deficiency  of  upwards  of 
$27,000.  Now,  the  Church  mortgages  were  not  included  in  that 
statement,  because  they  were  not  productivci  The  ol)ject  and 
purpose  of  such  mortgages,  is  distinctly  stated  in  the  supple- 
mental report  of  tlie  Church,  in  which  it  is  said  "  they  are  in 
reality  only  held  to  secure  to  the  permanent  use  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  the  Church  buildings  and 
property,  upon  the  security  of  which  this  body  have  loaned 
money  to  other  Church  corporations  for  their  aid  and  support." 

The  report  proceeds  with  a  statement  which  it  has  been  sup- 
posed is  in  conflict  with  the  facts.  It  says,  "  The  vestry  believe 
that  no  measures  have  been  taken  to  foreclose  any  of  such  mort- 
gages or  to  collect  interest  upon  them,  although  the  interest  has 
been  remitted  upon  one  or  more  of  such  mortgages,  when  the  lien 
was  about  expiring  by  lapse  of  time,  upon  the  agreement  being 
made  to  revive  such  lien." 

It  has  been  supposed  that  other  statements  contained  in  the  re- 
port of  the  vestry  are  in  conflict  with  the  last  above  quoted  para- 
graph, and  that  the  mortgages  executed  respectively  by  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  City  Mission  Society  and  the  Yandevvater- 
street  Church,  have  in  fact  been  foreclosed  by  Trinty  Church. 
Now  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Livingston  proves  that  the  report  by 
the  Church  is  in  this  respect  entirely  correct.  He  sliows  the 
following  to,  be  the  facts.  Two  churches  belonging  to  the  last 
mentioned  society  were  each  subject  to  a  first  mortgage  in  favor  of 
tlie  Howard  Insurance  Company,  and  to  a  second  mortgage  in 
favor  of  Trinity  Church.  The  Howard  Insurance  Company  fore- 
closed their  mortgage,  not  Trinity  Church,  those  held  by  her.  This 
the  vestry  had  nothing  to  do  with,  and  could  not  prevent.  But 
they  did  prevent  the  sacrifice  of  the  Church  property,  by  coming 
in  at  the  sale  and  purcliasing  the  property  for  tlie  Churches  inter- 
ested. To  effect  this  purpose  it  was  necessary  to  bid  $10,140.51 
more  than  the  amount  necessary  to  pay  the  first  mortgages  to  the 
Howard  Insurance  Company,  and  the  expenses.  This  belonged 
to  Trinity  Church,  and  to  enable  the  Churclies  interested  to  take 
the  title,  it  was  necessary,  the  money  not  being  paid,  that  Trinity 


13 


Churcli  should  give  a  receipt  for  it,  as  if  it  had  been  paid.  She 
did  so,  and  aided  them  further  by  paying  towards  the  purchase 
money  in  cash  $2,859.49  ;  and  then  took  mortgages,  $6,500  on 
each  Church,  for  $13,000,  composed  of  the  sum  of  $10,140.51, 
credited  on  the  mortgages  of  the  Mission  Society,  and  $2,859.49 
now  paid  in  cash.  Here  then  the  Church  mortgages  were  used  for 
and  served  the  purpose  of  protecting  the  Cliurch  property  covered 
by  them.  If  these  mortgages  had  not  existed,  more  than  $10,000 
would  have  been  lost  to  the  Churches,  Avhich  through  these  in- 
struments was  saved. 

In  reference  to  the  Vandewater-street  church,  Mr.  Livingston 
also  states  that  after  Trinity  Church  had  purchased  St.  George's 
Chm-ch  in  Beekman-street,  the  church  of  the  Holy  Evangelists 
sold,  of  their  own  accord,  their  church  building  in  Vandewater- 
street,  and  after  paying  out  of  the  purchase  money  the  prior  en- 
cumbrances, paid  over  the  balance  of  $1200  to  Trinity  Church 
in  part  payment  of  her  subsequent  mortgage ;  and  this  and  a  muth 
larger  sum  besides  was  expended  by  Trinity  Church  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Evangelist  after  it  had  removed  to 
St.  George's  in  Beekman-street. 

Thus,  in  both  instances,  (of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Mission 
Society  and  the  Vandewater-street  church.)  the  church  mortgages 
were  not  foreclosed  by  Trinity  Church,  but  yet  served  their  pur- 
pose of  saving  in  part  at  least  the  sums  given  by  Trinity  Church, 
which  were  immediately  devoted  by  her  again  to  the  benefit  of  the 
mortgaged  churches. 

Eeference  has  been  made  to  the  case  of  St.  Peter's  Churcli  as 
connected  with  the  subject  of  church  mortgages,  and  an  inference 
unfavorable  to  Trinity  Church  has  been  drawn  from  the  statement 
of  Mr.  Beach.  This  transaction  has  been  explained  by  Mr. 
Moore,  a  witness.  Here,  as  he  says.  Trinity  Church  held  a  first 
mortgage,  and  refused  on  the  application  of  certain  creditors  of 
St.  Peter's  to  waive  the  priority  of  lien  in  favor  of  such  creditors, 
except  so  far  as  she  had  already  done  by  waiving  her  lien  for 
interest  as  against  the  whole  principal  and  interest,  (not  exceed- 
ing one  year's  interest,)  due  or  to  grow  due  on  a  subsequent 
mortgage;  stating  as  a  reason  that  the  first  mortgage  held  by 
Trinity  Church  was  really  held  for  the  benefit  of  St.  Peter's,  and 
that  her  congregation  ought,  by  their  individual  exertions,  to  re- 
lieve the  church  from  debt.    There  was  no  such  cold  refusal  here 


14 


as  would  seem  to  be  implied  by  tlie  latter  clause  of  Mr.  Beach's 
testimony.  The  object  of  the  church  was  only  to  encourage  and 
excite  individual  elfort  for  the  relief  of  St.  Peter's  from  her  debt, 
and  to  take  care  that  tlie  original  purpose  of  this  church  mort- 
gage should  be  answered  by  securing  to  the  use  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  the  church  buildings  of  St.  Peter's,  so  far  at 
least,  as  to  the  extent  of  the  principal  of  the  church  mortgage. 

It  is  shown  by  the  testimony  that  the  interest  on  church  mortg- 
ages has  been  remitted  when  the  lien  of  the  mortgages  had  ex- 
pired, or  was  about  expiring  by  lapse  of  time,  in  two  cases,  that 
of  St.  Thomas'  and  Zion  Church.  In  this  respect,  therefore,  the 
report  is  proved  to  be  true. 

It  has  also  been  proved  by  the  testimony  of  several  witnesses 
that  the  vestry  do  not  regard  these  mortgages  as  productive  prop- 
erty, and  no  interest  is  ever  collected  upon  them;  again  conclu- 
sively establishing  the  statement  made  in  the  report  of  the  Chui'ch. 
The  same  witnesses — and  I  do  not  wish  to  consume  the  time  of 
the  committee  by  referring  to  the  testimony  with  which  they  are 
familiar — show  tliat  these  mortgages  are  really  held  by  Trinity 
Church  for  the  benefit  of  the  churches  upon  which  they  are  a  lien 
and  for  no  other  purpose;  and  every  case  of  such  mortgages 
which  has  been  mentioned  confirms  their  statement  by  exhibiting 
that  they  really  did  operate  in  those  cases  to  the  advantage  of  the 
churches. 

The  purpose  of  requiring  these  mortgages  is  therefore  suf- 
ficiently shown,  and  as  to  their  effect  upon  the  interest  of 
the  churches  concerned,  and  indeed  upon  their  independence, 
about  which  so  much  has  been  said,  I  may  refer  to  the  testimony 
of  Bishop  Potter,  who  says  in  regard  to  them  :  "These  loans 
were  absolute  in  reality.  Nobody  ever  supposed  that  the  interest 
or  the  principal  would  be  called  for  by  Trinity  Church.  They 
never  have  been  in  a  single  instance,  although  the  cases  have 
been  very  numerous,  in  which  such  mortgages  have  been  given. 
When  I  consecrate  a  church,  I  always  wish  to  know  whether  there 
be  any  debt.  I  never  regard  a  mortgage  given  to  Trinity  Church 
in  the  light  of  a  debt.  I  have  never  perceived,  and  do  not  be- 
lieve that  such  mortgages  in  any  way  affect  the  independence  of 
ministers  and  laymen.  It  is  very  common  indeed,  to  see  the 
ministers  and  laymen  of  a  Churcli  subject  to  a  mortgage,  voting 
against  measures  favored  by  Trinity  Church.    In  conventions  I 


15 


doubt  whether  any  one  remembers  or  reflects  whether  mortgages 
exist  in  particular  quarters  or  not.  The  effect  of  these  mortgages 
has,  I  doubt  not,  been  important  in  preventing  the  property  of 
Churches  from  being  sold  and  alienated  from  their  sacred  use;  and 
this  I  have  always  understood  was  the  object  of  Trinity  Church  in 
requiring  them.''  And  Bishop  De  Lancey  states  that  the  effect  of 
taking  such  mortgages  upon  the  interest  and  condition  of  Churches 
mortgaged,  has  been  "favorable,  by  preventing  Church  edifices 
from  being  alienated  from  the  holy  objects  for  which  they  were 
erected,  by  encouraging  individual  members  to  sustain  the 
Church  thus  secured  to  its  object,  and  by  being  an  obstacle,  as  a 
first  mortgage  against  further  mortgages  of  the  Church  for  debt. 
I  cannot  say  that  I  have  seen  any  moral,  spiritual,  ecclesiastical 
or  pecuniary  evils  result  from  such  mortgages  in  my  diocese." 

It  must,  therefore,  be  manifest  that  these  mortgages  have 
been  required  to  serve  a  good  object,  and  that  such  object  has  been 
attained. 

Now,  I  submit,  that  there  is  no  other  legal  method  possible  to 
to  be  devised  by  which  this  object  could  be  attained.  Expe- 
rience shows  that  the  power  is  in  safe  hands,  and  if  it  bo  said 
that  there  is  no  legal  obligation  to  confine  these  mortgages  to 
their  original  purpose,  there  is  yet  a  great  public  responsibility 
that  must  always  be  sufficient. 

The  next  liead  of  omission  for  which  Trinity  Church  has  been 
blamed,  is  of  her  interest  in  St.  John's  Park.*  The  deed  under 
which  this  interest  was  derived  is  dated  on  the  22d  of  May, 
1827.  The  main  object  of  this  deed  was  to  make  St.  John's 
Park  an  open  square  for  the  use  of  the  owners  of  adjoining  lots. 
The  provision  looking  to  its  being  appropriated  to  any  other  pur- 
pose, had  relation  to  a  very  remote  contingency, — so  remote  and 
improbable,  as  that  it  coidd  only  have  been  suggested  by  the 
skill  of  an  experienced  conveyancer.  When,  therefore,  the 
report  says,  and  witnesses  testify,  that  after  nearly  thirty  years 
"it  was  not  remembered"  that  the  contingent  interest  of  Trinity 
Church  existed,  they  are  to  be  believed.  Neither  can  it  be 
justly  said  that  the  value  of  this  interest  is  $400,000.  Mr.  Skid- 
more,  after  verifying  the  statements  of  the  supplemental  report 
on  this  subject,  testifes  that  the  "whole  number  of  lots  interested 


•This  matter  is  stated  in  the  snpplemental  report  of  the  Church,  page  65  of  the  testimony, 
80  clearly  as  to  be  incapable  of  misapprehension. 


16 


in  this  park  is  I  think  sixty-four,  of  which  Trinity  Church  owns 
seven,  being  about  one-ninth  of  the  whole.  It  was  supposed  on 
the  part  of  some  of  the  property  owners,  that  they  would  be 
able  to  get  from  the  United  States  some  $GUO,000  or  ^700,U00  for 
the  property,  but  I  do  not  know  whether  they  actually  had  an 
offer  for  it  or  not;  but  even  if  sold  at  that  price  the  pro-rata  of 
Trinity  Church  would  have  been  about  $70,000.  St.  John's 
chapel,  Parsonage  and  Sunday  School  stand  on  these  seven  lots." 
It  is,  therefore,  evident  that  the  value  of  the  interest  of  Trinity 
Church,  if  stated  at  all  cannot  be  more  than  between  $70,000 
and  $80,000;  tli*-  utmost  price  talked  of  being  $700,000,  and  the 
share  of  the  Church  being  but  one-ninth.  The  object  of  naming 
$400,000  is  clearly  stated,  both  in  the  supplemental  report  and 
in  the  testimony  of  General  Dix,  to  have  been  to  fix  a  sum  as 
damages  which  would  be  sustained,  through  the  injury  to  St. 
John's  Chapel,  and  not  as  a  valuation  of  the  interest  of  Trinity 
Church,  or  with  any  expectation  that  any  such  sum  could  ever 
be  realized. 

It  is  therefore  submitted  that  the  truth  of  the  supplemental 
report  on  this  subject  has  been  perfectly  verified  by  the  testimony. 

The  statement  in  the  report  of  the  Vestry  relative  to  the  amount 
expended  for  St.  George's  Church,  in  Beekman-strect,  has  been 
questioned  by  Dr.  Tyng,  examined  in  New- York.  He  says, 
"  that  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief  Trinity  Church 
never  paid  but  $25,000  for  St.  George's  Ckurch."  Dr.  Berrian, 
however,  vindicates  the  report  in  his  clear  testimony  on  this  sub- 
ject, in  which  he  tells  you  that  Trinity  Church  not  only  paid 
$25,000  in  money,  but  released  conditions,  the  releasing  which 
was  of  great  pecuniary  value  to  St.  George's  Church,  and  also 
relieved  the  last  named  Church  from  obligations  to  pew  and  vault 
owners,  which  release  and  relief  w'ere  expressly  valued  between 
the  parties  at  $25,000,  and  Trinity  Church  was  then  allowed 
credit  to  that  amount  on  account  of  the  price,  $50,000,  asked  by 
St.  George's  Church  for  its  church  building  in  Beekman-street. 

Leaving  now  this  matter  of  statement  of  property,  I  call  the 
attention  of  the  Committee  to  the  frame  work  of  the  charges 
against  Trinity  Church,  as  contained  in  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Bradish.  Promises  and  representations  are  stated  to  have  been 
made  by  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  as  inducements  for  the 
passage  hy  the  Legislature,  of  the  law  of  1814.  This  statement 
is  made  the  foundation  for  every  otlier  charge.  It  is  alleged  that 
the  Vestry  have  not  kept  their  promises  and  representations,  and 


17 


that  certain  consequences,  first  affecting  lier  internal  condition,  and 
second  affecting  other  Churches,  liave  followed  from  this  breacli. 
These  consequences  constitute  the  charges  against  the  corparation ; 
and  it  is  argued  that  as  the  promises  are  broken  on  the  part  of  the 
Church,  the  act  of  1814,  the  promise  of  the  State,  is  no  longer 
binding  and  ought  to  be  repealed. 

Now,  as  to  these  alleged  promises  or  representations,  Dr.  Au- 
tlion  says  that  to  calm  the  fears  of  the  Legislature,  the  Vestry 
"  promised  that  their  funds  should  be  applied  to  the  building  of 
Churches,  from  time  to  time,  as  the  increase  of  population  de- 
manded; the  control  of  such  chui'ches  to  be  relinquished  to  inde- 
pendent vestries,  etc.,  suitable  endowTiients  to  be  made;"  and  Mr. 
Bradish  says,  quoting  from  the  pamphlet  of  Col.  Troup,  "judging 
from  the  past,  it  is  morally  certain  that  the  future  increase  of 
the  population  of  the  city  will  strongly  recommend  to  the  cor- 
poration of  Trinity  Church  the  policy  of  dividing  its  corporators 
and  setting  them  off  in  separate  Churches,  with  suitable  endow- 
ments; and  to  enable  the  Vestry  to  do  this  in  a  mode  free  from 
all  legal  duubts,  and  with  the  assent  of  a  majority  of  the  corpora- 
tors to  be  set  off",  is  a  fifth  object  of  the  bill."  "  Again,"  quoting 
from  the  same  pamphlet,  "  the  bill  when  passed  into  a  law  would 
have  the  happy  consequence  of  enabling  the  Vestry  of  Trinity 
Church  from  time  to  time  as  society  shall  advance,  to  separate 
Churches  with  the  consent  of  their  congregations,  and  to  endow 
them  with  competent  estates.  No  power  can  be  more  congenial 
than  this  to  the  spirit  of  our  republican  systems." 

It  is  to  be  observed  in  relation  to  this  pretence,  first,  that  there 
was  no  promise  here  of  Trinity  Chui-ch  by  which  she  bound 
herself  to  any  particular  course  of  action;  that  in  the  pamphlet 
quoted.  Col.  Troop  gave  only  his  individual  opinion,  without 
having,  or  pretending  to  have  any  authority  from  the  Church,  or 
to  speak  in  its  name.  He  wrote  this  pamphlet,  as  he  expressly 
states,  at  the  X'equest  of  the  council  of  revision,  made  to  him  per- 
sonally in  order  to  elicit  his  individual  opinion. 

Second  :  It  is  not  pretended  that  there  was  any  misrepresenta- 
tion of  fact  or  fraud,  and  the  language  of  Col.  Troup  clearly  sliows 
that  at  most,  he  stated  a  policy  which  he  thought  would  probably 
be  carried  out.  Now,  if  any  reliance  had  been  placed  upon  ex- 
pectations which  are  now  supposed  to  have  been  excited  by  what 
Col.  Troup  wrote,  why  was  not  a  proviso  inserted  in  the  act  to 
cover  the  easel   And  even  supposing  that  Col.  Troup,  acting  as 

2 


18 


agent  or  counsel  for  the  corporation,  had  stated  previous  to  the 
passage  of  the  act  what  was  the  course  of  the  management  of  their 
aifars,  which  Trinity  Church  intended  to  pursue  after  the  pas- 
sage of  the  act,  it  is  a  new  doctrine,  I  submit,  to  contend  that  this 
can  be  grafted,  with  all  the  force  of  a  proviso,  upon  a  law  passed 
after  such  representations  were  made. 

Third — But  there  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  the  position  that 
any  promises  were  made. 

One  object  of  the  law  of  1814  was  to  enable  Trinity  Church  to 
separate  any  of  its  chapels,  and  to  endow  them  with  competent 
estates.  I  read  now  from  the  fifth  section  of  that  law  :  "  And  be 
it  further  enacted,  that  when  and  as  often  as  it  shall  seem  expe- 
dient to  the  said  Rector,  Church  wardens  and  vestrymen  of 
Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of  New-York,  to  divide  the  congrega- 
tion or  corporators  belonging  to  the  said  corporation,  it  shall  he 
lawful  for  them  so  to  do,  by  setting  apart  as  a  separate  Church, 
any  of  the  Churches  or  chapels  that  may  belong  to,  and  form  a 
part  of  the  said  corporation;  provided  the  same  be  done  with  the 
assent  of  a  majority  of  the  persons  entitled  to  vote  as  aforesaid, 
who  shall  belong  to  such  Church  or  chapel  intended  to  be  set 
apart,"  etc. 

Now,  this  section  manifestly  gives  a  jpower  to  the  vestry  to  do 
what  the  section  authorizes,  and  leaves  it  entirely  to  their  discre- 
tion to  exercise  it  or  not. 

Look  then,  at  the  passages  quoted  from  Col.  Troup's  pamphlet 
in  connection  with  the  provisions  of  the  section  just  quoted.  He 
says,  "  it  is  morally  certain  that  the  future  increase  of  the  popu- 
lation of  the  city  will  strongly  recommend  to  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  Church,  the  policy  of  dividing  its  corporation,"  etc.;  and 
"  to  enable  the  vestry  to  do  this  in  a  mode  free  from  all  legal 
doubts,  etc.,  is  a  fifth  object  of  the  bill."  That  is  to  say,  the 
power  ought  to  be  given,  and  it  is  his  opinion  that  it  will  be  exer- 
cised. And  in  the  same  way,  in  the  other  paragraph  quoted  by 
Mr  Bradish,  Col.  Troup  says  that  "  the  bill  when  passed  into  a 
law  would  have  the  happy  consequence  of  enabling  the  vestry  of 
Trinity  Church,  from  time  to  time,  as  society  shall  advance,  to 
separate  Churches  with  the  consent  of  their  congregations,  and  to 
^'endow  them  with  competent  estates.  No  power  can  be  more  con- 
genial than  this  to  the  spirit  of  our  republican  system." 


19 


It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  Col.  Troup  was  only  urging  that 
the  power  ought  to  be  given  in  order  that  the  Church  might,  if  it 
saw  fit,  exercise  it,  and  he  made  no  promise  in  any  form,  that 
they  would  exercise  it.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  any  congregation 
of  Trinity  Church  has  applied  to  be  set  olf. 

The  paragraphs  which  I  have  quoted  contain  all  the  represen- 
tations or  promises,  which  are  alleged  to  have  been  or  were  made 
by  Trinity  Church  or  any  one  for  it.  Is  there  any  thing  here, 
even  holding  out  the  expectation  in  any  form,  that  Trinity  Church 
would  endow  with  land,  Churches  not  forming  part  of  her  own 
corporation  1  There  is  not  a  word  that  can  bear  any  such  con- 
struction, and  yet  Dr.  Anthon  tells  us,  in  the  paragraph  before 
quoted  from  his  testimony,  "  That  the  vestry  promised  that  their 
funds  should  be  applied  to  the  building  of  Churches  from  time  to 
time,  as  the  increase  of  population  demanded  ;  the  control  of 
such  Churches  to  be  relinquished  to  independent  vestries,  etc., 
suitable  endowments  to  be  made"  ;  and  Mr.  Bradish  says  :  "  that 
a  return  to  the  policy  and  practice  of  endowments  in  landed 
estates,  as  contemplated  in  the  act  of  1814,  and  was  promised  as 
an  inducement  to  the  passage  of  that  act,  can  alone  give  a  real 
and  healthy  development  of  Church  growth  and  parochial  inde- 
pendence.'' 

These  statements  are  in  direct  conflict  with  the  fact,  for  Col. 
Troup  expressed  no  opinion,  and  much  less  made  any  promise,  as 
to  the  probable  or  intended  course  of  the  vestry  in  relation  to 
the  endowment  of  churches  not  her  own  ;  and  this  is  an  instance 
of  the  recklessness  with  which  these  witnesses  have  given  their 
testimony.  And  it  is  the  more  important  to  point  out  their 
inaccuracies  in  this  respect,  as  the  propositions  which  they  have 
thus  sworn  to,  make  the  whole  flimsey  basis  upon  which  the  case 
(theirs  if  any  body's)  rests. 

Again,  to  point  out  another  instance  showing  the  entire  unre- 
liability of  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Bradish,  I  call  the  attention  of 
the  committee  to  the  fact  that  the  act  of  1814  had  passed  both 
houses  on  the  2d  of  April  1813,  [see  p.  95  of  Mr.  Bradish's 
testimony  in  the  first  report  of  the  committee]  and  the  pamphlet 
of  Col.  Troup  is  dated  on  the  6th  of  September,  1813,  more  than 
six  months  after  the  act  had  passed  both  houses.  Yet  Mr. 
Bradish  says  [p.  101  of  first  report  of  this  committee,]  that  as  an 
inducement  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814  it  was  urged  "as 
morally  certain  that  the  future  increase  of  the  population  of  the 


20 


city  would  strongly  recommend  to  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
Church  the  policy  of  dividing  its  corporators,  and  setting  them 
off'  in  separate  churches  with  suitable  endowments,  and  to  enable 
the  vestry  to  do  this  in  a  mode,  free  from  all  legal  doubts,  was 
an  object  of  the  bill.  The  hill  was  drawn  and  passed  accord- 
ingly.^^ Yet  the  truth  is  that  the  bill  was  drawn  and  j^assedboth 
houses  six  months  before  Col.  Troup  said  any  thing  respecting  it  in 
the  paragraph  alluded  to,  and  from  which  Mr.  Bradish  derives 
his  authority. 

Mr.  Bradish  says  "that  the  action  of. the  vestry  previous  and 
subsequent  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814  gives  peculiar  signi- 
ficance to  those  paragraphs  in  Col.  Troup's  pamphlet."  Under 
this  beginning  it  is  sought  to  be  made  out  that  the  church  has  not 
given  her  lands  to  other  churches,  and  from  the  policy  of  giving 
money  certain  consequences  have  flowed.  These  consequences 
constitute  the  charges  against  the  vestry  ;  and  these  divide 
themselves  into  such  as  affect  the  church  at  large,  and  such  as 
affect  the  internal  concerns  of  Trinity  Church.  Of  those  that 
relate  to  the  church  at  large  I  know  propose  to  speak. 

As  to  gifts  by  money  grants,  secured  by  mortgage  or  otherwise, 
or  by  stipends,  Mr.  Bradish  says  that,  "  it  is  believed  that  they 
interfere  with" — Dr.  Anthon,  "that  they  seriously  impair" — and 
Dr.  Taylor  that  "  they  are  fatal  to  the  independence  of  the 
parishes  thus  aided."  Dr.  Taylor,  moreover,  speaks  of  the 
"  overwhelming  influence"  exerted  by  these  means  ;  and  to  sup- 
port his  assertion  he  retails  a  hear  say  story  of  what  a  clergyman 
told  him,  that  a  churchwarden  had  told  him,  that  the  comptroller 
of  Trinity  Church  had  told  the  churchwarden,  without  name  or 
date  !    This  is  the  testimony  against  us. 

Does  the  Church  really  exercise  any  such  influence,  or  control 
the  opinions  of  clergymen  or  laymen  of  Churches  which  she  aids, 
or  has  aided  in  any  form  1  I  refer  to  the  testimony  for  a  complete 
answer  to  this  question. 

Mr.  Skidmore,  who  has  been  a  member  of  the  vestry  for  ten 
years,  and  of  the  standing  commitee  for  six  to  eight  years,  when 
asked  if  the  vestry  had  in  any  way  endeavored  to  control  the  free 
opinions  or  acts  of  vestries  or  ministers,  who  had  received  or  were 
seeking  aid  for  their  Churches,  answered  "not  to  his  knowledge." 
Dr.  Haight  when  asked  as  to  the  effect  of  gifts  of  money  in  any  of 
the  forms  mentioned,  upon  the  pecuniary  independence  or  free- 


21 


dom  of  sppeoh  or  action  of  the  clergymen  and  vestries  of  Churches 
aided,  answered  as  follows  : 

"  I  do  not  think  that  the  aid  bestowed  in  any  of  the  forms 
mentioned  has  had  the  slightest  etfect  upon  the  independence  of 
speech,  or  freedom  of  action  of  the  clergymen  and  laity  of  the 
parishes  aided.  I  have  had  some  opportunity  of  noticing  the 
course  pursued  by  clergy  and  laity  in  our  diocesan  conventions, 
having  been  for  twenty  years  assistant  secretary  and  secretary  of 
the  same,  during  tlie  greater  part  of  which  time  there  prevailed 
great  diversities  of  opinion.  In  looking  over  the  list  of  parishes 
whose  Churches  have  been  mortgaged  to  Trinity  Church,  I  find 
eight,  the  clergy  and  lay  delegates  of  which,  for  a  series  of  years, 
in  all  leading  questions,  spoke  and  voted  differently  from  the 
Rector  and  the  lay  delegates  of  Trinity.  Two  of  these  are 
mortgaged  for  $25,000  each,  two  for  $20,000,  one  for  $5,000.  The 
other  three  for  smaller  sums.  So  also  in  regard  to  the  Churches 
which  have  received  grants  of  land  and  money,  or  annual  sti- 
pends, I  find  nearly  thirty  which  have  taken  the  same  inde- 
pendent course  in  convention,  without  regard  to  the  course  of 
Trinity.  My  opinion  of  the  clergy  and  laity  of  the  diocese  of  New- 
York  is  such  that  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  practicable  for  any 
corporation  to  buy  their  opinions  or  their  votes.  Of  the  Churches 
last  referred  to,  six  received  gifts  of  land  and  money,  twelve  gifts 
of  money  alone,  and  two  received  gifts  of  land  and  a  stipend;  three 
received  gifts  of  land  alone,  six  received  stipends  alone.  My 
knowledge  of  the  votes  of  these  clergy  and  lay  delegates  of  the 
several  Parishes,  was  derived  from  the  fact,  that  for  a  long  series 
of  years  it  became  my  duty  at  every  convention  to  call  the  ayes 
and  noes  on  very  many  questions.'' 

Bishop  Potter  also  speaks  to  the  same  point,  when  asked  a 
similar  question,  and  says  : 

"  I  do  not  see  why  the  assistance  spoken  of  in  the  question, 
should  be  injurious  to  the  parishes  in  the  respect  mentioned  in 
the  question,  nor  do  I  believe  that  it  has  been  ;  but  on  the  con- 
trary beneficial.  It  has  encouraged  parishes  to  exertion,  in  many 
instances,  when  otherwise  they  would  have  been  unable  to 
maintain  themselves.  The  feeling  often  has  been,  I  think,  that 
the  parishes  receiving  such  aid  have  laid  themselves  under  a  spe- 
cial obligation  to  exert  themselves.  If  it  was  an  absolute  grant 
with  a  mortgage,  it  did  not  differ  essentially  from  any  other  gift, 


22 


except  the  obligation  just  spoken  of  was  incurred  ;  if  it  was  an 
annual  stipend  it  was  like  the  stipends  granted  by  the  Missionary 
committee  of  the  diocese,  and  those  annual  stipends  have  been 
provided  for  by  the  collective  wisdom  of  the  Church  in  the  dio- 
cese, as  a  part  of  her  organized  system,  which  must  imply  an 
opinion  of  the  whole  Church  in  the  diocese  that  that  mode  of 
rendering  assistance  is  a  useful  mode.  I  have  known  many  cases 
where  a  Church  being  able  to  establish  itself  in  a  given  commu- 
nity, or  being  able  to  maintain  itself,  seemed  to  depend  upon  the 
assistance  it  received  from  Trinity  Church.'' 

I  can  refer  also,  in  connection  with  this  point  to  the  strong 
and  satisfactory  statement  of  Gen.  Dix. 

It  seems,  therefore,  that  Trinity  Church  neither  makes  its  gifts 
with  the  view  of  exercising  any  influence  over  the  churches  aided, 
nor  does,  nor  can  exercise  any  control  by  such  means. 

We  are  next  told  that  Trinity  Church  is  influenced  by  parti- 
zan  considerations  in  making  her  gifts  to  other  churches.  The 
witnesses  who  were  called  to  prove  this  were  the  Rev.  Jesse 
Pound,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Anthon  and  Mr.  Wolf. 

The  testimony  on  this  subject,  produced  on  the  part  of  the 
church  can  leave  no  doubt  of  the  entire  falsity  of  this  charge, 
commencing  with  the  solemn  denial  of  the  venerable  Dr.  Ber- 
rian,  the  rector,  "  as  a  christian  man  and  a  christian  minister,  I 
declare  that  I  have  never  heard  one  [charge]  which  appears  to 
be  more  unfounded  and  unjust.  I  have  for  twenty-eight  years, 
as  assistant  rector  and  rector,  presided  at  the  meetings  of  the 
vestry,  and  I  have  never  heard  a  syllable  from  any  member  of  that 
body,  in  any  application  before  them,  which  would  warrant  the 
charge,  that  it  would  be  determined  on  partizan  grounds.  What 
influence  the  difference  of  opinions  may  exert  on  individual 
minds,  it  is  impossible  to  tell,  but  I  know  very  well  that  the 
question  never  comes  up,  nor  is  ever  alluded  to  in  the  vestry 
itself." 

Mr.  Skidmore,  of  the  standing  committee,  gives  a  similar  an- 
swer, and  adds;  "if  I  thought  that  any  application,  in  all  other 
respects  meritorious  should  be  rejected  on  the  grounds  of  its  being 
low  chiu-ch,  I  should  resign  my  place  as  a  member  of  the  stand- 
ing committee. 


33 


Mr.  Moore,  who  was  on  the  standing  committee,  and  was  a 
member  of  the  vestry  for  eighteen  years,  confirms  this,  and  adds 
that  every  case  is  discussed  and  decided  upon  its  merits.  Gen- 
eral John  A.  Dix,  the  Hon.  Gulian  C.  Verplanck  and  Mr.  John 
R.  Livingston,  none  of  whom  are  members  of  the  standing  com- 
mittee, make  the  same  statement. 

But  though  these  witnesses  have  proved,  under  the  solemnity 
of  an  oath,  that  all  grants  are  made  by  the  vestry  upon  the  mer- 
its of  each  case,  without  any  regard  to  the  party  character  of 
the  church  applying  for  assistance;  particular  cases  of  chm-ch 
applications  have  been  relied  upon  to  show  that  the  action  of  the 
vestry  indicates  that  they  are  in  reality  influenced  by  party  con- 
siderations.   I  will,  therefore,  refer  to  the  cases  mentioned. 

St.  Jude's.  It  is  established  by  the  testimony,  and  I  need  not 
refer  to  it  more  particularly,  that  there  were  Churches  in  the 
immediate  neighborhood,  one  especially,  long  and  well  estab- 
lished, so  near  as  to  show  that  this  Church  was  unnecessary.  The 
Rev.  Mr.  Pound  speaks  of  this  and  also  states  that  after  the  ap- 
plication of  St.  Jude's  to  Trinity  was  made,  the  Rector  became  a 
Presbyterian.  These  facts  taken  in  connection  with  the  state  of  the 
finances  of  Trinity  Church,  which  rendered  it  impossible  for  it  to 
grant  more  than  a  few  of  the  church  applications  pending  before 
it,  are  sufficient  to  show  that  no  inference  can  be  drawn  that 
Trinity  Church  fefused  this  application  on  party  grounds. 

St.  Matthew's.  This  Church,  at  the  time  ofits  application  was 
in  a  low  condition,  which  the  Rector  of  Trinity  then  knew,  as  he 
tells  you.  Its  minister  testified  before  this  Committee  that  it  had 
then  "  died  out."  The  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  were  perempto- 
rily required,  to  pay  its  debt,  stated  to  amount  to  .$4,800,  $1,200 
a  year  for  the  support  of  the  Church,  and  whatever  might  be  ne- 
cessary for  repairs.  This  was  an  expenditure,  which,  under  the 
circumstances  of  the  case,  it  was  neither  practicable  nor  useful 
for  the  Vestry  to  undertake;  and  independently  of  financial  con- 
siderations, and  the  doubt  whether  aid  if  rendered  would  revive 
this  sinking  Church,  the  Committee  may  perceive  from  the 
guarded  answers  of  Bishop  Potter  and  Dr.  Berrian,  that  there 
were  circumstances  of  a  different  kind  which  showed  that  it 
would  not  have  been  wise  to  yield  to. the  application.    Ot  those 


24 


circumstances  it  would  not  become  me,  any  more  than  it  would 
them,  to  speak.    Moreover,  the  church  property  was  not  sacri 
ficed,  but  reverted,  as  Mr.  Pound  tells  you,  to  the  donor, Bishop 
Eastburn. 

St.  Luke's.  Much  has  been  said  of  the  large  expenditures  and 
donations  made  for  this  Church.  Mr.  Verplanck  has  detailed  the 
peculiar  circumstances  attending  this  case.  The  church  is  situ- 
ated in  the  midst  of  the  leased  lots  of  Trinity  Church,  with  her 
tenants  surrounding  it.  Its  congregation  is  poor,  and  utterly  una- 
ble to  support  it.  The  Vestry  have  always  regarded  it  their  duty 
to  maintain  this  Church,  in  so  far  as  its  own  people  might  be  una- 
ble to  do  so.  Their  ability  has  grown  less  year  by  year,  owing 
to  the  removal  of  the  wealthier  classes  to  more  desirable  parts 
of  the  city;  and  the  necessary  dependence  of  St.  Luke's  upon 
Trinity  for  aid  has,  therefore,  yearly  increased,  and  probably 
will  still  further  increase. 

St.  Timothy's :  The  application  on  behalf  of  this  Church  re- 
quired a  large  expenditure,  or  the  incurring  obligations  to  a 
large  amount.  It  was  in  reality,  and  was  felt  to  be,  a  noble  pro- 
position on  the  part  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Howland.  It  was  a  subject 
of  repeated  discussions  both  in  the  Vestry  and  in  the  Standing 
Committee.  It  was  twice  reported  upon  and  twice  referred,  and 
finally  the  report  of  the  Standing  Committee  o»  this  subject  was 
laid  upon  the  table,  and  has  not  yet  been  acted  upon.  If  in  any 
case  the  Vestry  could  be  inlluenced  by  partiality  it  would  have 
been  in  this.  Mr.  Howland  is  a  high  churchman ;  and  not  on  that 
account,  but  on  account  of  the  generous,  self-sacrificing  cha- 
rity which  marked  his  proposal,  and  of  great  personal  regard 
for  its  author,  every  Vestryman  was  moved,  and  none  more 
strongly  than  myself,  to  co-operate  with  him  in  his  plans.  But 
the  condition  of  the  affairs  of  Trinity  Church,  an  insuperable 
obstacle,  has  hitherto  prevented  compliance.  The  action  of  the 
Vestry  upon  this  application,  brought  here  as  an  accusation 
against  us,  ought  to  be  viewed  as  strong  evidence  of  the  impar- 
tiality of  the  Vestry. 

In  answer  to  all  that  I  have  put  forward  to  justify  the  vestry 
against  this  charge  of  partiality,  it  may  be  said  that  the  acts  of 


25 


that  body  prove  the  accusation  because  the  amount  of  gifts  to 
low  Churches  does  not  bear  a  due  proportion  to  the  amount  given 
to  high  Churches.  But  this  is  a  question  of  motive.  By  what 
motive  were  the  vestry  actuated?  And  it  is  impossible  with  jus- 
tice to  discredit  the  solemn  declarations  of  the  gentlemen  con- 
cerned when  they  say  that  they  were  influenced  only  by  a 
consideration  of  the  merits  of  each  case.  If  there  were  any  dis- 
proportion, it  must  be  regarded  as  only  accidental,  because  it 
cannot  with  certainty  be  reasoned  that  it  was  designed.  For 
instance,  a  case  might  be  supposed,  when  at  the  same  time  there 
wer3  ten  applications  before  the  vestry,  five  of  one  class  of 
Chui'ch  opinions,  and  five  of  another.  Five,  all  of  one  class 
might  be  granted  on  their  merits  solely,  and  the  other  five  rejected 
solely  on  the  same  ground.  The  conclusion  therefore  is  not 
sound  that  the  vestry  must  have  been  influenced  by  partizan 
feelings,  because  (as  Dr.  Anthon  says,)  from  1835  to  1847  they 
granted  more  in  proportion  to  high  churchmen  than  to  low 
churchmen. 

Indeed,  if  a  long  instead  of  a  short  period  of  time  be  taken  for 
a  comparison  of  the  gifts  made  to  Churches,  of  the  class  called 
high  Chureli,  with  those  made  to  Churches  of  low  Church 
opinions,  no  such  disparity  as  has  been  relied  npon  would  ap- 
pear, for  Dr.  Berriau  says  :  "It  would  be  exceedingly  difficult 
to  make  a  comparison  from  actual  facts,  but  I  think  I  may  ven- 
ture to  say  very  safely,  that  if  the  aggregate  amount  of  the  favors 
and  benefits  received  from  Trinity  by  those  Churches  Avhose 
rectors  and  vestries  are  supposed  not  to  sympathize  with  her  in 
her  views,  were  set  against  the  amount  received  by  those  whose 
rectors  and  vestries  cordially  do,  that  the  groundless  charge  of 
undue  partiality  would  be  still  more  apparent.  In  this  compara- 
tive estimate,  however,  must  be  included  what  the  coporation 
has  done  for  St.  Mark's  Church,  Grace  Church  and  St.  Georges, 
whose  rectors,  if  we  may  judge  from  their  evidence  in  the  pre- 
sent inquiry,  appear  to  have  had  no  great  good  will  towards 
Trinity  Church;  though  with  more  reason  for  kind  feelings  and 
grateful  recollections  than  all  others." 

The  next  charge  is  that  stipends  have  been  reduced.  Dr. 
Tyng  says  that  he  has  heard  of  no  instances  where  they  have  not 
been  reduced,  and  he  has  heard  of  several  where  they  have.  This 
is  mere  hearsay  ;  but  it  is  disproved. 


26 


Mr.  Skidmore,  Mr.  Moore,  and  Mr.  Livingston,  have  all  testi- 
fied on  this  point,  and  they  say  tliat  the  aggregate  amount  of 
stipends  has,  as  they  believe,  not  been  reduced  ;  that  the  stipends 
have  indeed  been  reduced  and  sometimes  wholly  taken  away  from 
those  churches  that  could  afford  to  do  without  them  or  with  a 
less  amount :  the  rule  being  to  give  these  allowances,  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  clergymen,  to  the  poor  churches  and  take  them  away 
from  the  rich,  and  to  give  according  to  the  needs  of  each  church. 

The  comparative  statement  contained  in  the  testimony  of  Gen. 
Dix  confirms  these  statements,  and  shows  that  for  only  two  of  the 
ten  years  last  past,  were  these  sti|3ends  larger  than  they  are  now 
in  their  aggregate  amount. 

Complaint  is  made  of  the  frequency  and  facility  of  refusal, 
and  of  ungracious  and  wearisome  reluctance  in  granting,  to 
increase  the  sense  of  obligation. 

This  is  entirely  untrue  and  arises  only  from  an  exaggerated 
notion  of  the  means  of  the  corporation,  Mr.  Skidmore  tells  you 
that  there  are  numerous  and  continued  applications,  so  that  never 
can  more  than  one  in  ten  be  granted.  His  testimony  has  been 
misrepresented  in  the  public  prints,  and  therefore  I  read  his 
answer  on  this  subject.  He  was  asked,  is  it  true  that  aid  was 
given  to  churches  reluctantly  and  offensively?  and  replied, 
"  Reluctantly  only  when  our  sympathies  were  running  away  with 
our  better  judgment ;  never  offensively,  I  should  hope.  I  would 
like  to  say  in  addition  that  applications  were  very  numerous  and 
many  of  a  highly  meritorious  character,  and  which  we  were 
obliged  most  reluctantly  to  refuse,  and  which  enlisted  our 
strongest  spmpathies.  When  we  had  the  means  at  our  disposal, 
we  took  great  pleasure  in  granting  the  applications." 

Mr.  Moore  makes  substantially  the  same  statement. 

I  submit  that  the  truth  is  apparent  from  the  whole  testimony 
that  in  making  grants  to  other  churches,  the  vestry  have  per- 
formed its  duty  with  a  sincere  desire  and  effort  to  do  the  most 
good  in  its  power,  and  in  the  right  quarters  ;  and  that  tliis  charge 
results  from  suspicion  merely,  and  from  the  discontent  that  might 
be  expected  to  be  exerted  by  the  necessary  refusal  of  a  large 
number  of  applications,  and  by  unavoidable  delays  in  granting 
others. 

I  have  now  finished  my  remarks  upon  the  charges  against  the 
vestry  of  mismanagement  affecting  the  Church  af  large. 


27 


We  are  next  told  that  the  altered  policy,  (altered  since  1814,) 
of  giving  money  rather  than  land,  has  produced  disastrous 
results  on  the  parish  itself.  Some  of  the  charges  under  this  head 
related  to  the  administration  of  its  estate  and  the  management 
of  its  internal  affairs  by  the  vestry. 

And  first,  as  to  the  alleged  unsuccessful  attempt  to  see  a  list 
of  the  corporators.  There  was,  indeed,  one  such  instance,  and 
one  only — that  of  Bishop  Wainright.  Dr.  Higbee  testifies  that 
there  was  but  one  application,  and  that  made  by  Bishop  Wain- 
right,  both  on  behalf  of  himself  and  Dr.  Higbee,  and  it  certainly 
appears  that  Dr.  Berrian,  owing  to  his  desire  not  to  interfere 
with  the  duties  of  the  officer  having  the  custody  of  the  list  did 
not  show  it  when  requested  so  to  do  ;  and  that  its  inspection  was 
also  refused,  not  by  the  Comptroller,  but  by  a  subordinate  clerk 
in  the  Comptroller's  office.  It  is,  however,  sufficient  to  prevent 
any  imputation  against  the  vestry,  growing  out  of  this  occurrence, 
to  refer  to  the  testimony  of  j)r.  Berrian,  Mr.  Skidmore  and  Mr. 
Moore,  by  which  it  is  clearly  proved  that  there  was  never  any 
rule  or  order  of  the  vestry,  at  any  time,  justifying  such  a  refusal; 
that  it  was  done  entirely  without  authority;  and  that  as  sbon  as  it 
was  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  vestry  they  rebuked  the 
action  unanimously,  by  declaring  that  opportunity  to  make  the 
inspection  should  be  afforded  to  Bishop  Wainright,  and  that  he 
should  be  allowed  to  take  such  copies  or  extracts  as  he  might 
think  proper.  A  copy  of  the  list  was  afterwards  sent  to  him. 
It  is  also  proved  by  the  same  witnesses,  or  some  of  them,  that  the 
books  containing  the  names  of  the  corporators  are  always  open 
to  inspection,  and  at  every  election  are  taken  to  the  place  where 
the  election  is  held.  It  appears,  moreover,  from  the  testimony, 
both  of  Dr.  Berrian  and  Dr.  Haight,  that  every  care  is  taken  to 
add  the  names  of  new  corporators. 

The  vestry  have  also  been  censured  because  it  appears  from 
the  testimony  of  Mr.  Wolf,  (the  only  witness  on  this  subject 
against  the  vestry,)  that  some  of  the  corporators  being  pew- 
holders  are  dead,  and  some  have  removed  from  the  city.  The 
supplemental  report  of  the  Church  states,  that  the  lists  of  corpo- 
rators therein  given  were  believed  to  be  accurate.    Dr.  Haight 


28 


has  explained  that  it  is  difficult  even  fur  the  officiating  clergy- 
man to  ascertain  whether  pew-holders  have  died  or  have  left  the 
city,  and  as  Mr.  Wolf  merely  says  that  there  are  some  names  of 
deceased  persons  and  of  persons  residing  out  of  the  city,  it  is 
very  likely  that  the  error  is  small  in  amount,  and  it  is  certain 
that  no  want  of  good  faith  can  be  justly  charged  upon  the  vestry 
in  this  matter.  The  mistake  might  readily  occur,  notwithstand- 
ing that  reasonable  care  was  exercised. 

The  next  complaint  is  of  the  letting  of  pews  in  Trinity  Chapel, 
that  these  were  so  let  that  the  lessees  of  the  pews  could  not  be 
corporators  by  virtue  of  their  being  pew  owners.  Such  an  ar- 
rangement was  certainly  made  by  agreement  between  the  lessees 
of  the  pews  and  Trinity  Church.  The  circumstances  which  in- 
duced this  arrangement  have  been  very  clearly  explained  by  Mr. 
Skidraore.  They  were  as  follows  :  No  person  can  become  a  cor- 
porator of  Trinity  Church  as  a  pew  holder  without  the  consent 
of  the  vestry,  because  no  person  can  hire  a  pew  without  their 
consent.  And  ordinarily  these  hirings  take  place  by  private  ar- 
rangement between  the  vestry  or  their  agent  and  each  individual 
applying  for  a  pew;  thus  affording  an  opportunity  to  ascertain 
the  character  of  each  applicant.  But  in  the  case  of  Trinity  Chapel 
the  pews  were  leased  at  auction,  and  as  any  person  might  bid, 
it  was  impossible  to  make  any  discrimination  as  to  persons  who 
should  be  allowed  to  take  pews.  And  considering  the  impor- 
tance of  the  interests  involved,  and  the  facility  afforded  by  an 
auction  sale  for  combinations,  and  for  the  introduction  of  improp- 
er persons  who  might  be  even  of  a  ditferent  religious  denomina- 
tion, it  seems  to  have  been  both  natural  and  proper  that  some 
measures  should  have  been  adopted  to  guard  against  the  evils 
which  might  otherwise  have  resulted.  For  these  reasons  the  ar- 
rangement which  is  censured  was  entered  into.  It  was  but  tem- 
porary, by  the  letter  of  the  agreement  to  extend  for  not  more 
than  two  years.  No  one  was  injured  by  it,  nor  deprived  of  any 
right  tliat  he  could  have  possessed  as  a  pew  holder  had  his  lease 
contained  no  such  provisions;  for,  as  testified  by  Mr.  Skidmore, 
none  of  the  pew  holders  in  Trinity  Chapel  would  have  been  en- 
titled to  vote  at  the  next  Easter  election  after  their  hiring,  for 
the  reason  that  they  had  not  then  been  members  of  the  congre- 
gation for  one  year.  And  when  it  had  been  ascertained  that  the 
apprehended  danger  had  passed,  before  the  first  term  of  letting 
the  pews  had  expired,  the  arrangement  complained  of  was  vaca- 


29 


ted,  and  the  lettings  of  the  pews  were  made  in  such  form  that 
the  pew  holders  had  a  right  to  vote.  Mr.  Clayton  is  mistaken 
when  he  supposes  that  he  is  not  a  corporator  as  a  pew  holder  of 
Trinity  Chapel.  On  the  very  day  on  which  he  testified  he  was 
a  corporator,  being  then  a  pew  holder  and  having  been  a  member 
of  the  congregation  for  one  year. 

Another  charge,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  Church,  was,  that  the 
vestry  had  required  that  all  persons  desiring  to  vote  should  give 
written  notice  of  such  desire  to  the  Rector.  Mr.  Wolf  tells  us 
this,  but  he  must  have  been  under  a  misapprehension,  which  is 
not  improbable,  as  he  speaks  of  what  occurred  in  the  vestry 
while  he  was  a  member  of  it,  which  he  ceased  to  be  ten  years 
before  he  testified.  On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Berrian,  who  as 
Rector  of  the  church,  must  have  known  of  such  a  regulation,  if 
any  had  existed,  testifies  that  he  does  not  know  of  any  such 
requisition. 

The  next  complaint  is  that  "  there  is  so  little  interest  in  the 
vestry  elections  that,  in  eight  out  of  the  past  ten  years,  an  ave- 
rage of  hardly  one  in  ten  of  the  corporators  cared  to  appear  3  and 
on  one  occasion  only  twenty-three  persons  voted  for  twenty-two 
wardens  and  vestrymen."  Any  one  who  knows  anything  about 
the  elections  of  chiu-ch  corporators  must  be  perfectly  aware  that 
this  is  a  very  common  state  of  things  and  exists  in  all  parishes. 
Bishop  Potter  and  Dr.  Haight  have  proved  this  very  clearly. 
The  latter  says  :  "  That  at  the  elections  for  churchwardens  and 
vestrymen  of  anotiier  church  in  New-York,  (of  which  he  was  the 
rector  for  ten  years,)  of  which  there  were  from  100  to  150  cor- 
porators, although  he  presided  at  all,  he  never  saw  more  than 
four  or  five  voters  at  any  election,  except  on  one  occasion  of 
great  excitement  when  there  were  thirty."  And  Bishop  Potter 
speaks  of  the  practice  at  St.  Peter's  church,  Albany,  of  which 
he  was  rector  for  22  years,  where  with  100  or  125  corporators, 
there  were  at  the  Easter  elections  on  an  average  only  from  six 
to  ten  persons  present.  And  both  these  witnesses  say  that  this 
is  the  ordinary  condition  of  things  throughout  the  diocese,  and 
is  generally  a  favorable  indication  as  showing  that  the  corpo- 
rators are  satisfied  with  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the 
parish. 


30 


We  are  next  told  tliat  the  "  apathy  "  which  is  supposed  to  be 
indicated  by  the  fact  that  few  voters  attend  the  elections,  ex- 
tends to  the  vestry  itself,  and  it  is  said  that  every  thing  is  left  to 
the  standing  committee  of  the  vestry,  and  no  one  else  knows 
anything  about  the  affairs  of  the  Church. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  left  in  the  minds  of  the  committee  on 
this  subject.  The  Rector,  Mr.  Skidmore,  and  other  members  of 
the  vestry,  have  shown  the  course  of  business.  The  standing 
committee  have  power  only  to  lease  lots;  all  other  matters 
which  they  take  into  consideration  are  first  brought  up  in  the 
vestry  and  referred  to  the  committee.  At  every  meeting  of  the 
vestry,  as  part  of  the  order  of  business,  full  minutes  of  the 
standing  committee,  containing  in  detail  all  their  actions,  are 
read;  their  recommendations  are  then  passed  upon  in  that  body 
after  being  freely  discussed,  and  in  many  cases  are  overruled. 

This  committee  have  had  the  most  satisfactory  evidence  that 
members  of  the  vestry,  not  on  tlie  standing  committee,  do  know 
something  of  the  affairs  of  the  Church.  Three  gentlemen,  not  of 
that  committee — John  A.  Dix,  Gulian  C.  Verplanck,  and  John  R. 
Livingston — have  been  examined.  It  must  have  struck  this 
committee  that  these  witnesses  exhibited  not  only  great  and  ac- 
curate knowledge  of  the  business  of  the  corporation,  but  a  warm 
and  active  interest  in  the  performance  of  their  duties.  And  if  any 
memberof  the  vestry  lacked  a  suflQ.cient  knowledge  of  its  concerns, 
it  must  have  been  through  his  own  fault;  he  had  the  same  oppor- 
tunities for  information  as  others.  It  has  been  proved  that  access 
to  books  and  other  means  of  knowledge,  is  open  to  all  vestrymen, 
that  an  account,  showing  the  receipts  and  expenditures  and 
condition  of  the  corporation,  is  made  by  the  Comptroller  annually 
and  carefully  audited  by  a  committee  appointed  for  that  purpose, 
who  have  every  facility  afforded  to  them  for  testing  the  accounts, 
which  are  afterwards  subject  to  the  inspection  and  examination  of 
all  the  members  of  the  body.  When  I  observed  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Curtiss,  a  member  of  the  Vestry,  who  is  represented  to  have 
said  in  his  testimony  that  the  auditing  committee  have  access  to 
all  the  books  referred  to  in  the  annual  report,  and  such  only,  I 
knew  that  he  could  never  have  meant  to  be  understood  that  ac- 


31 


cess  to  any  books  was  refused  him  ;  and  the  idea  that  it  could 
have  been  refused,  is  in  conflict  with  all  the  other  testimony.  An 
inefiectual  attempt  to  procure  the  attendance  of  Mr.  Cm-tiss 
before  the  committee  was  made,  but  he  excused  himself  on  the 
ground  of  business  engagements  ;  and  in  the  absence  of  any 
power  in  this  committee  to  compel  his  attendance,  we  were  un- 
able to  offer  an  explanation  until  the  receipt  of  his  note,  excusing 
his  non-attendance.  This  has  been  presented  to  and  filed  by  the 
committee.  It  will  be  found  appended  to  the  testimony.  From 
this  it  appears  that  he  did  not  mean  to  be  understood  that  he 
was  refused  anything,  but  that  the  Auditing  Committee  had  ac- 
cess to  all  sources  of  information  to  which  they  wished  to  resort. 

But  Mr.  Bradish  compares  the  old  policy  with  the  new,  and 
tells  us  we  should  make  independent  Parishes,  like  St.  George's, 
Grace  and  St.  Mark's,  (all  built  and  endowed  with  land  by 
Trinity),  give  them  land  enough  to  make  them  independent,  and 
all  the  dreadful  evils  he  thinks  he  sees  would  not  exist.  Let 
me  make  a  contrast  between  the  policy  of  amply  endowing 
Churches  with  land,  prevailing  before  the  year  1814,  and  the 
policy  of  making  gifts  in  money,  prevailing  since  that  time. 

Prior  to  1814,  there  were  grants  of  318  lots,  by  means  of  which 
were  endowed  three  charitable  and  educational  institutions — Col- 
umbia College,  Trinity  School,  and  the  Society  for  promoting 
religion  and  learning  ;  three  amply  endowed  Churches — St. 
Mark's,  Grace,  and  St.  George's  ;  and  twelve  other  Churches  to 
which  were  given  lots  of  land  in  much  smaller  proportion  than 
to  the  three  Churches  last  named, — thus  making  eighteen 
Churches  and  institutions  benefited  by  the  gift  of  318  lots. 

One  thousand  and  fifty-nine  lots  have  been  sold  by  Trinity 
Church,  and  out  of  the  proceeds  derived  from  the  sale,  she  has 
given  away  for  the  benefit  of  other  churches  and  institutions 
$1,287,392.75.  Suppose  these  lots  had  been  given  for  endow- 
ments— if  these  were  as  liberal  as  those  made  before  1814,  the 
1059  lots  would  have  served  to  endow,  at  the  most,  forty-four 
churches  and  institutions,  and  indeed  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
they  would  have  sufficed  for  that  purpose;  for  the  three  churches 
above  mentioned  to  have  been  amply  endowed,  were  not  only  given 
land,  but  were  built  by  Trinity  Chui-ch,  and  the  twelve  other 


32 


churches  were  only  assisted,  by  the  lots  granted,  to  a  very  limited 
extent.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  lots  to  the  value  of  $50,000,  a 
small  allowance  for  an  endowment,  had  been  given  to  so  many 
churches  as  the  last  mentioned  sura  would  have  sufficed  for  the 
endowment  of,  on  Mr.  Bradish's  principle,  not  more  than  twenty- 
five  churches  could  have  been  made  independent  through  these 
1059  lots. 

But  what  has  Trinity  Church  accomplished  by  the  sale  of  these 
lots,  and  by  granting  to  other  churches  and  institutions  the 
moneys  received  from  the  sale?  By  this  policy  deemed  so  un- 
wise, St.  George's,  Grace  and  St.  Mark's  Churches  have  been 
built;  more  than  two  hundred  other  churches  have  been  aided, 
upwards  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  of  them  in  the  country; 
Hobart  Free  College,  at  Geneva,  has  received  an  endowment  of 
$3,000  a  year,  on  the  condition  that  it  shall  be  free  to  all;  the 
Theological  Seminary  and  Missionary  Boards  have  been  assisted; 
an  Episcopal  residence  has  been  purchased;  infirm  clergymen 
and  families  of  deceased  clergymen  have  received  annuities  and 
other  assistance :  and  these  are  only  some  of  the  results  of  the 
change  of  policy  which  has  been  complained  of. 

The  object  of  this  change  of  policy  is  manifest.  It  was  to 
distribute  the  fund  to  be  derived  from  the  gradual  disposition  of 
the  real  estate  amongst  many  churches  and  institutions,  doing 
for  each  only  what  it  could  not  do  for  itself,  and  lodging  to  the 
probable  beneficial  results  in  each  case,  rather  than  to  make  a  few 
favorites  rich  and  independent;  to  encourage  individual  effort  by 
timely  and  judicious  aid  in  every  quarter,  in  city  and  country. 
If  the  other  policy  had  been  followed,  the  property  would  have 
been  distributed  long  ago  without  provision  for  the  future,  and 
chui-ches  coming  into  existence  afterwards  could  have  had  no 
help. 

Take  then  these  facts :  Sales  of  the  X'eal  estate  have  been  made 
from  time  to  time,  so  that  now  only  one-third  of  the  original 
estate  remains — large  annual  deficiencies  during  the  last  ten 
years  have  been  occasioned  solely  by  the  gifts  of  the  Church — 
there  is  pressing  need  for  larger  expenditures  in  her  own  parish, 
and  the  question  is  answered,  "  do  you  think  that  Trinity 
Church  has  done  her  utmost  to  make  the  capital  of  that  corpo- 
ration available  for  the  founding,  or  support,  or  promotion  of 
religious,  charitable,  or  educational  institutions,  or  purposes  1 


33 


This  question  is  extracted  from  the  report  ot  the  Church. 
How  did  it  there  occur?  It  occurred  in  this  way.  The  report 
showed  how  Trinity  Church  had  been  in  the  habit  of  spending 
her  capital  year  by  year  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  by  gifts 
of  lots  or  by  proceeds  of  sale,  as  opportunity  offered,  other 
Churches  in  the  city  of  New-York  and  in  various  parts  of  the 
State,  and  to  found  and  aid  by  the  same  means,  institutions  of 
learning  or  charity,  or  to  contribute  to  the  maintenance  and  sup- 
port of  the  organization  of  the  Church  in  this  State — thus 
reducing  her  estate  to  one-third  its  original  extent  ;  and  that  she 
had,  moreover,  incurred  a  large  debt,  mainly  in  order  to  meet 
the  pressing  needs  of  other  Churches  and  institutions,  which  must 
be  provided  for  out  of  the  proceeds  of  sales.  Then  she  claimed 
that  this  statement  would  show  that  her  vestry  had  done  their 
utmost  to  make  the  capital  of  the  property  of  this  corporation 
available  for  the  purposes  mentioned  in  the  above  quoted  ques- 
tion. And  yet  this  question  was  asked  over  and  over  again,  of 
the  witnesses  examined  in  New-York.  What  knowledge  of  facts 
had  they  to  enable  them  to  answer  it  understandingly  1  It  does 
not  appear  that  they  had  any.  They  were  not  even  examined  as 
to  the  facts  that  might  have  been  within  their  knowledge.  Of 
what  value  is  such  testimony  1  And  even  if  they  were  acquainted 
with  the  facts  necessary  to  form  a  judgment,  the  testimony  would 
not  have  been  admissible  becauss  they  were  not  called  as  experts, 
and  it  was  for  the  committee,  and  the  committee  alone  to  come 
to  the  conclusion  on  the  facts  presented  to  them.  None  of  the 
opinions  of  the  witnesses,  therefore,  on  this  subject  deserve  the 
least  consideration. 

The  truth  is,  that  there  is  a  class  of  persons  in  the  city  of 
New- York  who  think  and  claim  that  all  the  property  of  Trinity 
Church  belongs  not  to  that  corporation,  but  to  all  persons  tliere 
residing  in  communion  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and 
who  entertain  grossly  exaggerated  notions  of  the  value  of  that 
property;  we  may  tell  these  gentlemen  over  and  over  again,  in  an- 
swer to  their  applications  that  her  debt  is  enormous,  and  that  it 
is  impossible  to  meet  the  demands  that  are  made  upon  her;  but 
it  is  of  no  avail.  And  if  you  were  to  propose  to  all  of  them  the 
question  to  which  I  have  objected,  you  would  get  from  all  the 

3 


34 


same  answer  which  was  elicited  from  so  many  witnesses  in  New- 
York.  They  would  speak  from  their  prejudices  ;  and  this  is  the 
key  to  the  correct  appreciation  of  the  whole  evidence  against  the 
Church. 

And  let  me  in  this  connection  call  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee to  the  witnesses  that  are  supposed  to  substantiate  the 
charges  against  the  vestry.  Three  of  them  are  assistant  ministei-s 
of  Trinity  Church  who  have  come  to  Albany  to  explain  their 
testimony  and  have  vindicated  the  Church;  two  are  vestrymen 
who  spoke  of  matters  since  explained ;  eleven  others  testified, 
merely,  as  to  the  values  of  lots;  Clayton  as  to  the  lettings  of 
pews  in  Trinity  chapel;  Wiley  and  Webb  as  to  immaterial  mat- 
ters and  Dr.  Muhlenburg,  whose  m-otives  no  man  would  impeach, 
testified  as  he  himself  says,  on  information  merely,  so  far  as  con- 
cerns any  facts  in  dispute,  and  certainly  under  an  entire  misap- 
prehension of  the  ability  of  Trinity  Church.  Leaving  out  those 
I  have  just  named,  all  the  other  witnesses  are  of  two  classes  and 
of  two  classes  only.  Tliey  are  clergymen  who  have  applied  on 
behalf  of  their  Churches  to  Trinity  Church  for  aid  and  have  been 
unsuccessful  in  their  applications;  or  they  are  parties  to  this  con- 
troversy, whom  it  suits  now  to  remain  concealed,  but  who  were 
engaged  in  the  same  contest  in  184C-47,  as  appears  in  evidence;  and 
who  it  may  be  seen  by  the  public  prints  are  at  this  moment  the  most 
active  in  the  same  attempt  which  was  made  in  those  years,  with 
the  exception  of  Dr.  Tyng,  who,  not  then  in  New-York,  was  not 
on  the  foi-mer  occasions  a  party,  but  is  now  among  the  most  vio- 
lent. They  sought,  under  cover  of  the  clamor  they  intended  to 
raise,  and  the  popular  prejudice  they  hoped  to  excite,  to  procure 
on  the  instant  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814.  Actuated,  then,  by 
the  strongest  interest,  and,  if  there  is  any  force  in  my  comments 
upon  the  course  of  these  proceedings,  attached  with  all  the  blame 
and  odium  that  ought  to  fall  upon  the  authoi-s  of  the  present  at- 
tack, they  came  before  the  committee  to  testify  to  suspicions,  ru- 
mors and  hear-say,  attributing  unworthy  motives  to  gentlemen, 
if  not  so  high  in  position,  at  least  as  respectable  as  themselves. 
That  they  are  gentlemen  of  respectability  and  character,  I  admit, 
but  their  positions  cannot  justify  disreputable  conduct,  though 
prompted  by  party  prejudice  and  narrow,  distorted  views. 

Several  of  the  gentlemen  whose  names  I  have  here  written  and 
have  read  to  the  committee  as  really  the  actors,  are  men  of  large 
estates,  and  I  undertake  to  say  that  three  of  them  are  worth 


35 


together  half  the  value  of  the  property  of  Trinity  Church  ;  and 
when  they  come  and  tell  us — as  Mr.  Minturn  has  done — (himself 
noted  for  his  liberal  charities)  that  because  Trinity  will  not  give, 
others  refuse,  it  is  no  justification  of  the  charges  they  make. 
They  complain  that  we  decline  to  do  what  we  have  not  the  power 
to  accomplish,  and  because  we  cannot  respond  to  their  demands 
they  withhold  their  own  charities.  And  who  amongst  the  clergy 
complain  at  our  want  of  care  for  the  spread  of  the  Church  ?  It 
is  remarkable  that  they  are  the  Rectors  of  those  churches  for  whom 
Trinity  Church  has  done  the  most — of  St.  Marks,  St.  George's, 
and  Grace  !    Churches  made  independent  and  rich  by  her  gifts. 

Next  it  is  said — most  monstrous  slander  of  all — that  Trinity 
Church  has  totally  neglected  the  wards  of  the  city  inhabited  by 
the  working  classes,  and  it  is  intimated  that  the  "  general  torpor'' 
extends  to  the  ministrations  of  the  parish. 

Gentlemen,  if  there  is  any  thing  proved  during  this  examina- 
tion of  a  satisfactory  character,  the  evidence  on  this  point  is  most 
conclusive.  Every  other  Episcopal  Church  formerly  situated  in 
the  lower  part  of  the  city  is  gone.  St.  George's  left  Beekman- 
street,  and  to  preserve  her  church  edifice  to  the  service  of  God, 
Trinity  was  obliged  to  pay  her  $50,000.  Grace  went  also,  and 
they  both  abandoned,  to  the  care  of  Trinity  Church,  the  districts 
which  they  left.  These  churches  were  in  a  part  of  the  city  which 
is  now  occupied  by  the  poor  or  by  individuals  of  very  moderate 
means,  and  the  places  they  left  we  now  occupy  alone  ;  and  having 
thus  themselves  abandoned  them  they  now  come  and  complain  of 
us  that  we  are  doing  nothing  for  the  poor  !  But  the  Churches  of 
Trinity  remain.  She  has  not  sold  them.  Trinity  Church,  the 
cost  of  which  has  been  made  so  prominent,  by  its  architectural 
merit  and  beauty,  invites  and  attracts  the  poor  to  the  worship  of 
their  Creator.  St.  Paul's  and  St.  John's  are  maintained.  Every 
arrangement  is  made  to  encourage  the  facile  approach  of  the  poor. 
Substantially  these  churches  are  free  to  them,  there  are  so  few 
paying  pews  in  Trinity  and  St.  PauFs,  that  the  pew  rents  in  the 
former  do  not  much  exceed  $150,  and  in  the  latter  $260.  In 
each  of  her  churches  Trinity  maintains  two  clergymen,  who, 
with  lay  assistants,  are  continually  visiting  the  poor,  to  ascertain 
their  wants,  spiritual  and  temporal — baptising  them,  marrying 
them,  burying  them,  serving  them  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave  ; 
offering  them  advice  and  comfort  and  consolation  in  their  distress, 
and  giving  them  food  and  clothing.    And  all  this  is  done  under 


36 


a  well  organized  system.  Nor  is  this  all.  The  emigrant  when 
he  lands  at  Castle  Garden  is  visited  by  a  clergyman  of  the  church, 
and  when  sick  at  the  hospital  at  Ward's  Island,  is  there  also 
under  the  care  of  a  clerical  agent  of  Trinity  Church.  We  are 
amongst  the  poor,  the  friends  of  the  poor.  Gentlemen,  this  is  no 
idle  tale.  It  is  written  here  in  this  volume  of  testimony  under 
oath. 

They  presume  to  taunt  us  tliat  the  parishioners  of  Trinity 
Church  do  not  give  in  charity ;  they,  wealthy  members  of 
wealthy  congregations,  living  with  the  rich,  tell  us  that  our 
poor  congregations  do  not  give  as  much  as  they.  I  venture  to  say 
that  our  congregations  have  given  as  much  according  to  their 
ability. 

But,  why  gentlemen  are  we  here  ]  We  have  no  interest  in 
this  matter, — we  stand  here  not  in  our  individual  capacities; 
we  have  nothing  to  gain,  nothing  to  lose,  by  the  repeal  of  the 
act  of  1814.  But  we  represent  the  corporators  of  this  Church, 
between  whom  and  the  State  there  is  a  solemn  contract  of 
charter.  Who  are  these  corporators  1  The  poor  men  I  have 
already  alluded  to  in  the  lower  part  of  the  city;  they  are  corpo- 
rators by  receiving  from  the  hand  of  the  clergy  of  the  Church 
the  holy  communion.  They  are  to  be  injured,  not  we.  You 
are  asked  to  establish  a  state  of  things  that  will  bring  strangers 
into  the  fold  of  Trinity, — a  state  of  things  that  would  bring 
strangers  from  other  parts  of  the  city  to  divide  this  property 
amongst  them,  and  then  Trinity  Church — if  such  a  thing  were 
possible,  but  it  is  not — and  all  her  establishment  in  the  lower 
part  of  the  city  would  cease,  and  her  worthy  but  independent 
people  would  be  left  in  utter  destitution,  so  far  as  regards  their 
spiritual  instruction. 

We  are  told,  among  other  things  thrown  into  the  case,  that 
leasehold  propeity  in  the  city  of  New-York  produces  inferiftr 
improvements  and  injures  property  in  its  neighborhood,  suggest- 
ing, it  must  be  presumed,  this  as  a  reason  for  taking  away  lease- 
hold property  from  its  rightful  owners  and  giving  it  to  others, 
that  they  may  as  fast  as  possible  change  its  character.  I  know 
that  this  committee  and  the  Legislature  have  too  much  respect 
for  the  rights  of  property  to  listen  for  a  moment  to  such  a  sug- 
gestion, or  to  regard  it,  except  with  the  contempt  it  deserves; 


37 


it  shows,  however,  the  nature  of  this  contest.  But  this  state- 
ment, worthless  as  it  is,  is  remarkable,  coming  from  any  gentle- 
man living  in  the  city  of  New-York  and  conversant  with  the 
facts.  The  testimony  refutes  it;  we  have  instanced  the  Sailors' 
Snug  Harbor,  Columbia  College,  and  Spingler  estates,  all  lease- 
hold, all  well  improved  and  all  favorably  affecting  property 
in  their  vicinity,  and  this  from  the  time  they  were  first  built 
upon.  The  character  of  the  improvements  depends  not  at  all, 
in  New- York,  upon  the  land  being  leasehold  or  in  fee,  it  de- 
pends upon  its  situation;  and  this  pretence  is  as  false  as  it  is 
wicked. 

Now,  gentlemen,  all  the  principal  witnesses  in  this  case,  who 
appeared  before  you  in  the  city  of  New- York,  were  players  at 
this  game  in  1846  and  1847;  except  one  who  has  since  come 
upon  the  field,  or  they  are  disappointed  applicants  for  aid  the 
Church  had  not  power  to  grant;  we  are  told  they  are  very 
respectable  men.  I  trust  the  respectability  of  these  men  will 
not  have  any  effect  upon  the  deliberations  of  this  committee. 
They  are  endeavoring  to  procure  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814, 
claimed  to  be  a  part  of  the  charter  of  the  Church,  which  has  re- 
mained undisturbed  from  that  time  to  this,  a  period  of  43  years, 
and  the  property  of  this  corporation  is  held  by  the  present  cor- 
porators under  a  title  reaching  far  back  of  1814.  For,  as  I 
have  contended,  these  corporators  have  been  in  possession  of  the 
rights  they  now  exercise  since  1798,  the  time  of  the  first  estab- 
lishment of  another  church,  nearly  60  years.  If  any  property  in 
this  country  is  secure,  this  should  remain  undisturbed. 


Hon.  A.  J.  Parker  then  addressed  the  committee  as  follows : 
The  part  that  has  been  assigned  me  in  the  argument  of  this 
case,  relates  mainly  to  a  discussion  of  the  questions  of  law.  I 
shall  cover  no  ground  that  has  been  occupied  by  the  gentleman 
who  has  preceded  me,  and  shall  refer  but  little  to  the  facts,  ex- 
cept where  it  is  necessary  they  should  be  fully  understood  to 
enable  you  to  apply  the  law  that  governs  the  case, 

I  address  the  Committee  as  a  judicial  body.  The  duty  is  im- 
posed on  them  of  deciding  grave  and  important  questions  of  law 


38 


and  fact.  I  shall  assume  that  their  minds  are  free  from  the  in- 
tluence  of  all  previously  formed  opinions.  They  cannot  dispense 
justice  in  its  purity,  unless  their  minds  be,  as  is  required  by  the 
common  law  of  a  juror,  in  the  expressive  language  of  the  books, 
"  like  apiece  of  blank  paper,"  free  from  all  previous  impressions. 

It  is  never  enough  that  the  mind  of  a  court  or  jury  be  pure  or 
honest.  Much  more  is  required,  or  justice  cannot  be  attained. 
It  must  be  free  from  all  bias  and  prejudice.  It  must  struggle  to 
discover  their  existence  and  to  guard  against  them;  and  it  too 
often  happens  that  they  exist,  though  their  possessor  is  uncon- 
scious of  their  existence. 

I  regard  it  as  a  great  misfortune  to  us  in  this  case,  that  some 
of  our  testimony  was  taken  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Ramsey,  and 
the  greater  part  of  it  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Noxon.  Their  ex- 
perience in  courts,  in  listening  to  testimony  and  judging  best  of 
it  when  uttered  by  the  witness  in  their  presence,  and  their  dis- 
tant residence  from  the  city  of  New-York,  the  scene  where  these 
differences  exist,  made  their  attendance  more  than  usually  de- 
sirable; especially  as  all  the  members  of  the  Committee  were 
present  at  New-York  and  heard  all  the  ex  parte  evidence  of  the 
prosecution.  I  do  not  allude  to  this  circumstance  in  the  spirit 
of  complaint,  for  I  am  fully  aware  of  the  great  and  pressing  la- 
bors which  these  Senators  are  called  on  to  perform;  but  I  speak 
of  it  with  deep  regret,  for  no  reading  of  our  testimony  by  those 
Senators  can  make  so  deep  an  impression  on  their  minds,  as 
would  the  listening  to  the  evidence  as  it  fell  from  the  lips  of 
the  witnesses.  It  is  necessary  to  see  the  witnesses  and  to  observe 
carefully  their  manner  and  appearance,  to  enable  you  to  judge 
best  of  their  intelligence  and  character,  of  the  purity  of  their 
hearts  and  the  truthfulness  of  their  w©rds.  Two  members  of 
this  Committee,  experienced  in  courts,  will  readily  appreciate 
the  advantages  of  hearing  and  seeing  the  witnesses. 

I  am  the  more  embarrassed  by  tliis  circumstance,  because  I 
do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  detain  you  so  long  as  to  read  over  to  you 
the  evidence  we  have  taken.  I  beg  leave  to  say,  however,  that 
the  witnesses  we  have  called  are  men  of  the  highest  standing  and 
character  in  the  State ;  such  men  as  Bishops  Potter  and  Delan  cy 


39 


Gen.  Dix,  Mr.  Verplanck  and  others  of  equal  standing;  men 
whose  integrity  has  never  been  questioned,  and  whose  opinions 
are  entitled  to  the  higliest  consideration. 

All  the  charges  against  Trinity  Church,  on  the  part  of  the 
prosecution,  were  based  on  hearsay  and  suspicion.  Every 
one  has  been  fullj''  met  and  answered  by  competent  evidence 
— overwhelmingly  and  conclusively  answered.  We  ceased 
only  to  call  witnesses,  when  members  of  the  Committee  assured 
us  there  could  be  no  necessity  for  further  cumulative  evidence. 
We  have  called  evidence  to  every  charge  and  even  to  every  in- 
sinuation made  by  the  witnesses  for  the  prosecution — evidence 
that  will  go  out  to  the  world  and  will  be  read — for  a  deep  in- 
terest is  now  felt  in  this  matter — it  will  be  read  carefully  by  every 
churchman  and  I  hope  by  others — and  by  this  evidence,  the 
prosecutors,  Trinity  Church  and  even  yourselves,  in  your  con- 
clusions upon  it,  shall  be  judged. 

I  concede  that  nearly  all  this  evidence  on  both  sides  is  entire- 
ly foreign  to  what  I  suppose  is  the  main  object  of  this  prosecu- 
tion, viz.,  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814.  How  the  property  has 
been  managed  and  what  is  its  amount,  can  certainly  have  no  con- 
nection with  the  right  to  vote  at  the  annual  vestry  elections. 
As  a  lawyer,  I  could  not  advise  that  any  evidence  upon  these 
questions  was  necessary  on  our  part,  to  enable  us  to  resist  all 
legislative  interference  with  our  legal  rights.  But  the  evidence 
has  been  given  by  us  for  the  purpose  of  putting  at  rest,  I  trust 
for  all  time  to  come,  the  gross  misrepresentations  that  have  been 
made  and  circulated  on  those  subjects;  to  vindicate,  before  the 
whole  community,  the  management  of  the  affairs  of  Trinity 
Church,  against  the  assaults  of  her  enemies. 

It  was  clearly  not  the  design  of  the  original  charter  that  any 
person  should  be  a  voter  at  the  vestry  elections,  unless  he  be- 
longed to  Trinity  parish.  By  the  original  charter  of  1697,  it 
was  provided  that  the  wardens  and  vestrymen  should  be  elected 
"by  the  majority  of  the  votes  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  parish, 
in  communion,  as  aforesaid;"  that  is  to  say,  as  previously  ex- 
pressed, "  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  Cliurch  of  England, 


40 


within  our  city  of  New-York."  None  but  the  parishioners  of 
Trinity  Church  had  a  right  to  vote. 

The  act  of  1704  did  not  change  this.  By  section  6,  the  in- 
habitants were  to  meet  annually  at  the  said  church,  to  choose 
two  church  wardens  and  twenty  vestrymen,  communicants  of 
said  church,  "  by  the  majority  of  the  voice  of  said  communicants 
so  met,  and  not  otherwise."  By  this  act,  also,  none  but  commu- 
nicants of  Trinity  Church  were  allowed  to  vote. 

The  third  section  of  the  act  of  1784  changed  materially  the 
corporators,  by  allowing  pew  holders  to  vote^  in  addition  to  com- 
municants.   It  was  as  follows  : 

k,  III.  Be  it  further  enacted,  &c.,  that  all  persons  professing  them- 
selves members  of  the  Episcopal  church,  who  shall  either  hold^ 
occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in  the  said  chui-ch,  and  shall  regu- 
larly pay  to  the  support  of  said  church,  and  such  others  as  shall 
in  the  said  church,  partake  of  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Lord'^s 
Supper,  at  least  once  in  every  year,  being  inhabitants  of  the  city 
and  county  of  New- York,  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  rights,  pri- 
vileges, benefits,  and  emoluments,  which  in  and  by  the  said 
charter  and  law  first  above  mentioned,  are  designed  to  be  secured 
to  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  in  communion  of  the 
Church  of  England." 

It  will  not  be  denied  but  a  new  class,  viz.,  pew  holders,  wag 
then  admitted  to  vote.  Communicants  were  to  vote  as  before. 
It  has  been  claimed  that  the  words  "in  the  said  Church",  mean 
in  the  Episcopal  Church,  in  a  general  and  denominational  sense; 
and  this  breadth  of  construction  has  been  attempted  to  be 
given  to  the  section,  so  as  to  include  all  communicants  and  all 
pew  holders  in  any  and  every  Episcopal  Church  in  the  city  of 
New- York.  I  deny  the  fairness  of  this  construction.  I  claim 
that  a  careful  examination  of  the  act  will  conclusively  show  that 
the  words  "in  the  said  Church,"  have  an  individual  and  local 
signification,  and  are  not  used  in  the  broad  sense  imputed  to  them. 
The  act  is  entitled  "  an  act  for  making  alterations  in  the  charter 
of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,^''  kc.  In  the  second  section 
power  is  conferred  upon  the  wardens  and  vestrymen  to  call  and 


41 


induct  a  Rector  to  the  said  Church,  so  often  as  there  shall  be  any 
vacancy  therein.  This  could  of  course  mean  no  other  than 
Trinity  Church  ;  and  in  the  third  section  above  quoted,  I  do  not 
see  how  it  could  be  doubted  that  the  expressions  "  a  pew  or 
seat  in  the  said  Church,"  and  paying  "  to  the  support  of  the  said 
Church,"  and  "  partaking  of  the  holy  sacrament  in  the  said 
Church,"  are  intended  to  have  a  local  and  individual  application 
and  refer  to  Trinity  Church  alone. 

It  could  have  reference  to  no  other  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
city  of  New-York,  for  no  other  Church  of  that  denomination  vas 
erected  in  that  city  till  nine  years  afterwards. 

The  act  of  1788,  made  no  change  in  the  charter  of  Trinity 
Church,  except  a  slight  modification  of  the  corporate  name. 

It  was  not  until  1812,  when  there  were  nine  Episcopal 
Churches  in  the  city  of  New-York,  and  nineteen  years  after  the 
first  of  such  additional  Chuf  ches  had  been  built,  that  a  claim 
was  made  by  two  or  three  persons,  being  corporators  of  other 
Episcopal  Churches,  to  vote  at  the  Trinity  vestry  election.  In 
consequence  of  that  claim,  of  which  I  shall  speak  hereafter  more 
particularly,  the  act  of  1814  was  passed.  That  act  was  entitled 
"  an  act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church 
in  New-York,  and  for  other  purposes,"  and  the  second  section 
was  as  follows : 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted,  that  all  male  persons  of  full  age, 
who  for  the  space  of  one  year  preceding  any  election  shall  have 
been  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  Church  aforesaid, 
or  of  any  of  the  chapels  belonging  to  the  same,  and  forming  part 
of  the  same  religious  corporation,  and  who  shall  hold,  occupy, 
or  engage  a  pew  or  seat  in  Trinity  Church,  or  in  any  of  the  said 
chapels,  or  have  partaken  of  the  holy  communion  therein,  within 
the  said  year,  and  no  other  persons,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at 
the  annual  elections  for  the  churchwardens  and  vestrymen  of  the 
said  corporation." 

It  is  this  section,  so  clear  and  explicit  in  its  provisions,  that 
the  movers  of  this  investigation  seek  to  repeal,  under  the  erro- 
neous supposition  that  if  it  were  repealed,  members  of  the 


42 


Episcopal  Churches  in  the  city  of  New- York,  not  being  either 
pewholders  or  communicants  of  Trinity  Church  or  its  chapels, 
would  have  the  right  to  vote  at  the  annual  vestry  elections  of 
Trinity  Church.  The  object  of  this  movement  is,  by  controling 
the  elections  of  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  to 
select  those  who  will]  appropriate  the  property  of  Trinity  to  the 
benefit  of  other  Episcopal  Churches  in  the  city  of  New- York. 

It  is  only  thus  incidentally,  and  as  a  consequence  of  enlarging 
the  number  of  corporators  who  may  vote  at  the  vestry  elections, 
that  any  question  of  property  is  involved  in  the  controversy. 
It  is  a  question  of  the  right  to  elect  those  who  control  property, 
and  not  a  question  of  ownership  itself.  Some  have  been  misled 
by  the  erroneous  impression,  that  the  property  of  Trinity  Church 
is  held  in  trust  for  the  benefit  of  others.  There  is  no  foundation 
whatever  for  such  an  opinion.  A  careful  examination  of  the 
charter  and  grants  will  show  that  the  property  was  given  to  the 
corporation  alone  as  its  own  absolute  property.  It  is  only  sub- 
ject to  that  great  trust,  that  high  religious  obligation,  by  which  all 
possessors  of  wealth,  yourself,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  all  others,  are 
responsible  to  the  Most  High  for  a  proper  application  and:  use  of 
the  gifts  of  Providence.  In  that  sense  it  is  a  trust  estate  and  in 
no  other. 

The  impression  I  have  referred  to  may  have  been  derived  in  part 
from  the  original  name  given  to  the  corporation.  By  the  charter 
of  1697,  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  was  declared  a  body 
corporate,  by  the  name  of  "  The  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  our 
said  city  of  New-York,  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  Church 
of  England,"  and  this  name  underwent  but  little  change  until 
the  act  of  1814.  Now  it  seems  to  be  supposed  that  because  the 
inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York  are  mentioned  in  the  name 
of  the  corporation,  they  are  all  to  be  deemed  incorporated  and 
included.  But  every  lawyer  must  know  that  powers  can 
neither  be  enlarged  nor  restricted  by  the  mere  name  given  to  a 
corporation.  Indeed  it  is  not  at  all  material,  as  a  matter  of  law, 
that  a  name  should  indicate  either  the  object  of  a  corporation  or 
the  number  and  character  of  its  corporators,  though  it  is  certainly 
advisable  as  a  matter  of  taste,  that  the  name  should  be  appropri- 


43 


ately  chosen.  The  Legislature  may  incorporate  a  company 
called  the  The  Merchants  of  Albany,"  but  such  a  name  would 
not  make  all  the  merchants  of  Albany  corporators,  any  more 
than  the  name  of  "  Mechanics  and  Farmers'  bank,"  would 
legally  indicate  that  it  belonged  to  mechanics  and  farmers  alone, 
and  exclude  all  others  from  an  ownership  in  its  stock.  We 
have  near  by  a  bank  called  the  "  National  Bank,"  but  it  is  sim- 
ply a  State  institution. 

A  grknt  made  to  "  The  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New-York  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  church,  &,c.,"  is 
simply  a  grant  to  the  corporation.  It  conveys  no  interest  to  the 
individual  inhabitants  of  the  city.  The  grant  of  Queen  Anne, 
made  in  1705,  after  reciting  the  incorporation  by  the  name  I 
have  quoted,  proceeds  to  give,  grant,  ratify  and  confirm  unto  the 
said  "  Rector  and  inhabitants,  &;c.,"  certain  property,  to  have  and 
to  hold  to  the  said  Rector  and  inhabitants,  &c.,  and  their  succes- 
sors forever.  Thus  using  words  of  perpetuity  applicable  to  a 
corporation  alone.  The  property  is  thus  given  to  the  corpora- 
tion as  such  in  its  own  right,  in  perpetuity,  and  no  individual 
right  vests  under  the  grant,  in  any  inhabitant  of  the  city  of  New- 
York.  No  lawyer  can  fail  to  understand  that  "  successors  "  is  a 
word  of  perpetuity,  applicable  only  to  a  corporation,  not  to  indi- 
viduals. 

The  selection  of  the  corporate  name  of  Trinity  Church  was 
made  in  accordance  with  a  custom  prevailing  at  that  early  day. 
St.  Peter's  Church,  in  this  city,  was  chartered  in  1769,  by  the  cor- 
porate name  of  "  The  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
Albany,  in  the  county  of  Albany,  in  communion  of  the  Church 
of  England,  &c.  That  name  was  changed  in  1789  to  "  the  Rec- 
tor and  Inhabitants  of  the  city  of  Albany  in  communion  with 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  State  of  New-York,'? 
and  it  still  bears  that  name,  though  there  are  four  other  Episco- 
pal Churches  in  the  same  city  A  grant  now  made  to  "  the  rector 
and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  Albany,"  &c.,  would  be  simply  a 
grant  to  the  corporation  of  St.  Peter's  Church.  Bishop  Potter 
tells  us  in  his  evidence,  that  when  St,  Paul's  Church  was  set 


44 


off  and  organized  in  this  city,  no  one  thought  of  its  making  a 
claim  on  St.  Peter's  for  a  portion  of  its  corporate  property. 

Mr.  Verplanck  also  informs  us  that  the  Episcopal  Church  at 
Fishkill  was  chartered  under  a  like  corporate  name;  and  by 
reference  to  3  R.  S.,  1st  ed.,  544,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Episco- 
pal Church  at  Poughkeepsie  was  called  "  the  rector  and  inhabi- 
tants of  Poughkeepsie  in  communion,"  &c.  Grace  Church,  in 
the  town  of  Jamaica,  Queens  county,  was  called  "  the  rector  and 
inhabitants  of  the  town  of  Jamaica,  in  communion,"  &c.;  and 
similar  corporate  names  were  given  to  other  churches. 

At  the  time  Trinity  Church  was  chartered,  and  for  many  years 
afterwards,  it  was  undoubtedly  supposed  that  this  church  would 
be  sufficient  for  the  accommodation  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
city  of  New-York,  who  were  in  communion  with  the  Episcopal 
Church.  The  original  charter,  and  the  subsequent  legislative 
acts,  were  evidently  framed  upon  the  idea  that  provision  was  to 
be  made  for  but  a  single  parish.  With  that  view  the  church 
building  and  churchyard,  in  the  charter  of  1697,  are  declared  to 
be  "  the  parish  church  and  churchyard  of  the  parish  of  Trinity 
Church,"  and  were  dedicated  "  to  the  service  of  God  for  that  use 
and  purpose,  and  no  other."  And  it  was  also  declared  that  "  the 
rector  shall  have  the  care  of  the  souls  of  the  inhabitants  within 
the  said  parish,  in  communion,"  kc.  The  power  of"  regulating 
the  affairs  of  the  said  corporation  and  parish  of  Trinity  Church" 
was  given  to  the  vestry,  and  the  church  wardens  were  expressly 
prohibited  from  disposing  of  any  of  the  pews  to  any  person  not 
an  inhabitant.  Indeed,  the  charter  went  so  far  as  to  declare 
that  the  church  and  churchyard  should  be  "  the  sole  and  only 
parish  church  and  churchyard  in  the  city  of  New-York." 

Even  at  that  time,  when  there  was  no  other  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  city  of  New- York,  it  did  not  follow  that  a  member  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  happening  to  come  to  the  city  of  New- York 
to  reside,  had  a  right  to  vote  at  the  vestry  elections  until  he  be- 
came a  member  of  the  parish;  for,  by  the  charter,  full  power 
was  given  to  the  church  officers  "  to  choose,  nominate  and  ap- 
point, so  many  others  of  our  liege  people  as  they  should  think 
fit,  and  shall  be  willing  to  accept  the  same,  to  be  members  of  the 


45 


said  church  and  corporation."  This  power  to  admit,  which  im- 
plies the  power  to  reject,  if  the  applicant  be  not  qualified  or  be 
unworthy,  is  of  course  only  applicable  to  inhabitants  of  the  city 
of  New-York,  for  all  others  are  expressly  excluded  by  the  char- 
ter. It  shows  a  discretion  in  admitting  parishoners,  vested  in 
the  officers  of  the  church,  to  be  exercised  within  the  prescribed 
limits — a  discretion  necessary  to  preserve  the  discipline  and 
order  of  the  church.  In  other  words,  it  shows  that  the  relation 
of  rector  and  parishioner  was  first  to  be  established  in  the  usual 
mode  to  constitue  a  person  a  corporator.  In  this  respect  it  was 
placed  upon  the  same  footing  of  all  other  churches.  It  seems  to 
me  plain  that  the  charter  excludes  all  as  corporators  who  are 
not  parishioners  of  Trinity  Church. 

The  word  "  parish  "  by  no  means  includes  all  who  reside 
within  a  given  district.  The  meaning,  when  used  as  in  this  act, 
is  declared  by  the  court  in  16  Mass.  Rep.  488,  to  be,  "  a  compe- 
tent number  of  persons,  dwelling  near  together  and  having  one 
bishop,  pastor,  &c.,  set  over  them." 

It  is  an  established  rule  of  the  English  Church,  that  a  person 
can  be  a  parishioner  in  but  one  parish.  Ey  the  28th  canon  of  that 
Church,  unless  he  be  a  wayfarer  or  traveler,  he  is  not  entitled  to 
partake  of  the  communion  except  in  the  parish  to  which  he  be- 
longs, though  it  is  in  the  discretion  of  the  pastor  of  another 
parish  to  admit  him.  This  same  rule  governs  every  Episcopal 
Church  in  this  country,  as  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  13th 
Canon  of  the  American  Church  ;  and  it  must  be  conceded  that 
such  a  rule  is  indispensable  to  Church  discipline,  and  must  be 
maintained  inviolate.  Surely  the  English  Government  will  not 
be  supposed  to  have  been  willing  to  violate,  by  any  charter, 
so  well  settled  and  salutary  a  principle  of  its  own  established 
Church  ;  and  no  strained  construction  should  be  put  on  a  charter, 
to  give  it  a  meaning  so  repugnant  to  the  probable  intent  of  the 
government  granting  it. 

So  too  in  this  country,  where  every  form  of  religion  is  fully 
and  equally  protected,  the  government  will  not  be  supposed  to 
have  intended  to  make  an  exception  to  its  beneficent  rules  of 
toleration,  in  singling  out  this  particular  Church  as  an  object  of 


46 


unjust  discrimination,  and  despotically  to  say,  it  shall  not  be 
governed  according  to  the  established  forms  and  usages  of  its 
faith,  by  a  vestry  chosen  by  its  own  pewholders  and  communi- 
cants, but  may  be  governed  by  a  vestry  chosen  by  the  votes  of 
those  who  do  not  worship  within  its  walls,  or  kneel  at  its  altar  ; 
by  those  who  are  members  of  other  religious  corporations,  and 
aliens  to  this.  Will  the  law  deprive  the  parishioners  of  Trinity 
Church  of  the  rights  enjoyed  by  every  other  Church  in  the  State 
of  every  denomination,  that  of  choosing  its  own  officers  ?  It 
would  be  a  deprivation  of  the  right  of  self  government.  A  vestry 
chosen  by  the  votes  ol  those  who  are  members  of  other  religious 
corporations  would  select  a  rector  for  the  congregation,  who 
would  not  be  the  choice  of  the  parishioners,  and  would  manage 
all  the  affairs  of  the  corporation  with  reference  rather  to  the  in- 
terests of  the  Churches  to  which  the  voters  belonged,  than  to 
those  of  Trinity  Church.  It  would  be  an  unheard  of  despotism, 
thus  to  permit  one  set  of  men  to  govern  another — to  control  its 
spiritual  as  well  as  temporal  affairs.  It  would  be  utterly  at  war 
with  all  our  ideas  of  civil  and  religious  liberty. 

The  principle  that  makes  a  person  a  member  of  but  one 
parish,  and  responsible  to  but  one  religious  society,  pervades  the 
whole  christian  world,  and  is  indispensable  to  the  maintaining 
of  discipline,  and  preservation  of  purity.  If,  when  the  pastor 
•withholds  the  sacred  elements  from  one  of  his  flock  because  of 
his  unworthiness,  he  can  go  to  another  parish,  aud  there  enjoy  the 
right  to  receive  the  holy  sacrament,  the  Church  would  fail 
utterly  in  its  influence  and  in  its  power  to  do  good. 

I  understand  that  it  is  the  practice  in  all  well  regulated 
churches  of  different  denominations,  when  a  person  removes 
from  the  parish  of  which  he  is  a  member,  to  take  with  him  a 
letter  dimissory,  accrediting  him  to  the  pastor  in  charge  of 
the  parish  to  which  he  removes,  certifying  to  his  good  standing 
in  the  Church,  on  which  he  is  formally  transferred  from  one 
society  to  the  other,  and  admitted  as  a  member  of  the  latter. 

So  universal  is  the  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  necessity  for  this 
discipline,  that  all  our  general  laws  for  the  forming  and  regulat- 


47 


ing  of  religious  societies  are  framed  upon  it.  The  general  act  of 
April  6th  1784,  as  to  all  religious  denominations,  anthorizes  the 
male  persons  of  full  age  belonging  to  any  Church,  congregation 
or  religious  society  not  already  established^  to  assemble  and  meet 
together,  and  by  a  plurality  of  voices,  elect  trustees  and  organize 
as  a  corporate  society.  (1  Jones  and  Varick  104).  So  too  the 
act  of  1801,  re-enacted  in  1813,  called  "an  act  to  provide  for  the 
incorporation  of  religious  societies,"  provides  in  the  first  section 
for  the  incorporation  of  societies  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  but  extends  its  benefits  only  to  those  not  already  incorpo- 
rated. (1  Kent  and  Radclifl",  336.)  By  thus  allowing  a  person 
to  be  a  corporator  in  but  one  Church,  the  statute  protects  fully 
the  Episcopal  and  other  churches  in  their  long  established  and 
indispensable  usages. 

There  is  certainly  nothing  in  the  charter  of  1697,  or  in  the  sub- 
sequent statutes,  that  sanctions  in  the  least  degree,  the  idea  that 
persons  in  communion  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church' 
who  were  parishioners  of  other  parishes,  could  vote  at  the 
vestry  elections  of  Trinity  Church.  Even  if  it  were  the  fair 
interpretation  of  the  act  of  1784,  that  Episcopalians  generally 
who  were  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York,  had  a  right  to 
vote,  which  I  deny,  yet  it  is  certain  that  even  then,  on  well 
settled  principles  of  law,  that  right  would  cease  on  uniting  with 
another  congregation.  The  moment  a  member  of  Trinity  Parish 
became  a  corporator  in  another  Church,  he  ceased  to  be  a  corpo- 
rator of  Trinity  Church.  (The  inhabitants  of  the  Parish  of 
Sutton  V.  Cole,  8  Mass.  R.  96.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
of  Cincinnati,  v.  Wood,  8  Hammond,  R.  283.) 

No  one  has  ever  yet  voted  at  the  vestry  elections  of  Trinity 
Church  who  was  not  a  member  of  Trinity  parish  ;  and  the  fact 
that  no  one  out  of  the  parish  so  voted  or  claimed  the  right  to 
vote  from  1784  to  1812,  a  period  of  28  years,  shows  a  cotempo- 
raneous  practical  consti-uction  of  the  act  of  1784,  which,  in  a 
case  of  doubt,  should  be  conclusive. 

The  fact  that  no  person  has  ever  voted  at  the  vestry  elections 
of  Trinity  Church,  except  a  pew  holder  or  a  communicant  of  that 
Church,  has  never  been  controverted.    It  was  not  denied  in  1814, 


48 


nor  in  1846  or  1847,  when  applications  were  made  to  the  Legis- 
lature to  repeal  the  act  of  1814.  Eut  we  have,  nevertheless,  not 
neglected  to  prove  it.  I  know  it  is  difl&cult  to  give  proof  in 
regard  to  transactions  which  occurred  sixty  or  seventy  years  ago, 
but  fortunately  we  were  able  to  produce  before  the  committee 
two  aged  men  of  the  highest  respectability,  whose  truth  and  in- 
tegrity will  never  be  questioned,  who  were  connected  with  this 
Church,  and  active  and  zealous  in  its  interests  prior  to  1812.  I 
allude  to  the  venerable  rector  of  the  parish,  Doct.  Berrian,  and 
the  Hon.  GulianC.  Verplanck.  The  latter  witness  was  examined 
fully  on  this  subject  in  the  absence  of  a  member  of  the  committee, 
Mr.  Noxon.  The  rector  tells  us  that  he  never  heard  of  any 
claim  of  this  kind  being  made  until  1812.  Mr.  Verplanck  was 
asked  if  any  persons  other  than  pew  holders  and  communicants 
in  Trinity  Church,  ever  voted  there?  He  answered,  "never  as  I 
believe;"  he  said  that  he  himself  was  a  corporator  there  in  1811, 
that  in  1812  there  was  a  great  struggle  in  the  parish,  arising  out 
of  some  question  between  Doct.  Hobart,  (afterwards  Bishop  Ho- 
bart,)  and  Mr.  Jones;  that  the  excitement  was  so  great  that  it 
brought  out  two  or  three  hundred  voters  at  the  vestry  election  of 
that  year,  and  that  he,  Mr.  Verplanck,  voted  at  that  election. 
He  informs  us,  that  on  that  occasion,  for  the  first  time,  two  other 
persons  belonging  to  other  Episcopal  Churches — corporators  of 
other  Churclies — came  forward  and  offered  their  votes  and  their 
votes  were  rejected.  It  was  the  great  excitement  then  prevailing 
that  led  to  this  act.  At  that  time  there  were  nine  other  Episco- 
pal Churches  in  New-York,  the  first  established  in  1793,  and  the 
others  subsequent  to  that  period ;  yet  no  one  ever  heard  of  such 
a  claim  having  been  made  prior  to  1812.  It  was  regarded  as  an 
extraordinai-y  circumstance  and  attracted  the  attention  of  the 
corporators  and  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  and  led  to  subsequent 
action  of  which  I  shall  presently  speak. 

The  following  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  vestry,  on  the 
28th  day  of  March,  1812.  It  seems  to  have  been  passed,  as  a 
precautionary  measure,  on  learning  that  votes  of  members  of 
other  churches  were  to  be  offered : 

"  It  having  been  represented  to  this  Board  that  certain  per- 
sons belonging  to  Protestant  Episcopal  congregations  in  this 
city,  which  have  been  incorporated  as  separate  and  distinct  from 
the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  and  who  are  not  pew-holders 
in  Trinity  Church  or  any  of  its  chapels,  claim  a  right  to  vote  at 


49 


the  annual  elections  for  churchwardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity 
Church,  therefore  resolved,  as  the  unanimous  sense  of  this 
Board,  that  no  otlier  persons,  except  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New-York,  who  profess  themselves  members  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church,  and  hold,  occupy  or  enjoy,  a  pew  or  seat  in 
Trinity  Church  or  one  of  its  chapels,  and  regularly  pay  to  the 
support  of  the  said  Church,  or  regularly  worshipping  therein, 
shall  partake  of  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper  in  the 
said  Church  or  one  of  its  chapels  at  least  once  in  every  year,  are 
entitled  to  vote  at  the  said  elections." 

It  was  in  consequence  of  this  offer  to  vote,  and  very  soon 
afterwards,  and  for  the  purpose  of  putting  at  rest  the  doubts  on 
that  subject,  that  Trinity  Church  applied  for  and  obtained  the 
passage  of  the  act  of  1814.  It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  Dr. 
Berrian  and  Mr.  Verplanck,  in  relating  this  circumstance  of  the 
votes  being  offered  and  rejected  in  1812,  add  further,  that  they 
learu  from  documentary  evidence,  from  history  and  tradition, 
that  no  such  claim  was  ever  before  made. 

The  petition  of  Trinity  Church,  on  which  {he  act  of  1814  was 
passed,  contains  very  strong  evidence  on  this  subject.  After 
reciting  the  original  charter  and  the  acts  subsequently  passed,  it 
proceeded  as  follows : 

"  That  since  the  passing  of  the  act  above  referred  to,  (the 
act  of  1784,)  the  pewholders  of  Trinity  Church  and  of  the 
churches  or  chapels  belonging  to  the  said  corporation  and  the 
regular  communicants  therein,  have  been  the  only  persons  ad- 
mitted to  vote  at  elections  for  churchwardens  and  vestrymen  of 
the  said  corporation,  according  to  tlie  just  and  fair  construc- 
tion contemporaneously  and  ever  since  given  to  the  said  act." 

After  proceeding  to  state  further,  in  the  petition,  the  unex- 
ampled increase  of  the  city  and  the  organization  therein  of  other 
religious  corporations  of  the  Episcopal  church,  and  that  none  of 
said  corporations  claimed  any  right  to  vote  in  the  elections  of 
Trinity  Church,  the  petition  proceeded  as  follows  : 

"  Nevertheless,  a  few  individuals  belonging  to  such  separate 
corporations,  have  recently  pretended  to  claim  that  right,  and 

4 


50 


at  the  last  annual  election  of  claurch  wardens  and  vestrymen  of 
Trinity  Church,  held  in  the  month  of  March,  1812,  two  or  three 
persons,  being  members  of  incorporated  churches,  separate  and 
distinct  from  your  petitioners,  tendered  themselves  as  voters; 
but  their  votes,  under  an  ordinance  previously  passed  by  your 
petitioners,  were  rejected  and  no  measures  have  been  yet  taken 
to  enforce  or  establish  the  right  so  claimed." 

The  allegations  thus  clearly  made  in  the  petitions  were  never 
denied,  and  ought,  at  this  late  day,  to  be  regarded  as  very  strong 
corroborative  evidence  of  the  facts  alleged. 

On  the  whole  evidence,  not  a  doubt  can  remain  in  regard  to 
the  fact,  that  no  one  ever  voted  at  the  vestry  elections  of  Trinity 
Church,  except  the  parishioners  of  that  church ;  and  the  great 
length  of  time  which  elapsed  after  new  churches  were  incor- 
porated previous  to  1812,  ought  to  be  regarded  as  very  conclu- 
sive evidence  that  the  members  of  the  churches  gave  to  the  act 
of  1784,  the  same  construction  which  we  claim  for  it.  That  con- 
struction, thus  practically  agreed  upon  by  all  parties,  ought  not 
now  to  be  questioned. 

One  of  the  witnesses  was  asked  by  a  member  of  the  committee, 
if  the  poll  lists  had  been  preserved;  and,  on  that  suggestion,  we 
sent  for  the  clerk  of  the  vestry,  and  examined  him  as  a  witness. 
He  states  that  he  has  made  a  full  examination  of  the  papers  of 
the  office,  and  that  no  poll  list  can  be  found  of  a  date  prior  to 
1846.  Since  that  time,  poll  lists  have  been  kept.  But  gentle- 
men, poll  lists  and  lists  of  corporators  are  very  different  things. 
Poll  lists  are  lists  of  persons  actually  voting  at  an  election. 
Lists  of  corporators  are  lists  of  those  entitled  to  vote.  The 
latter  have  always  been  kept.  They  are  part  of  the  records  of 
the  vestry,  they  embrace  not  only  the  names  of  communicants 
received  from  time  to  time,  but  the  lists  of  pew  holders  also. 
It  seems  it  had  never  been  the  practice  to  keep  lists  of  voters  at 
the  vestry  meetings  prior  to  1816.  It  was  enough  that  the  pre- 
siding officer  had  before  him  the  lists  of  corporators,  that  he 
might  ascertain  the  right  of  a  person  to  vote,  if  any  such  ques- 
tion should  arise. 


51 


And  here,  I  hope  it  may  not  he  thought  out  of  place,  Mr. 
Chairman,  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  following 
expression  in  your  report  on  the  ex  'parte,  evidence,  occurring  on 
page  4  of  the  legislative  document.  You  there  say,  "  it  must 
therefore  be  an  oversight,  that  among  the  names  contained  in 
these  lists,"  believed  to  be  accurate,  "  there  are  those  of  persons 
who  have  removed  from  the  city,  and  also  of  others  who  have 
long  been  dead — some  of  th^m  for  years  ."'  This  is  based  on  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Wolfe,  as  it  appears  on  pages  113  and  114  of 
the  same  document;  but  that  evidence  will  by  no  means  justify 
either  the  expression  or  the  insinuation  of  the  report.  Mr. Wolfe 
said,  "  on  the  list  of  corporators  who  are  communicants  and  not 
pew-holders,  I  do  not  know  that  any  of  them  have  deceased ;  on 
the  list  of  corporators  as  pew-holders,  there  are  some  names  of 
deceased  persons,  and  of  persons  residing  out  of  the  city."  He 
does  not  say,  as  you  state  in  the  report,  that  they  have  "  long 
been  dead — ^some  of  them  for  years !"  He  said  nothing  that 
could  imply  a  censure.  His  evidence  was  not  inconsistent  with 
the  idea  that  their  death  or  removal  occurred  immediately  before 
his  examination  as  a  witness.  Again,  the  report  conveys  the 
idea  that  the  remark  was  applicable  to  all  tlie  lists,  whereas  the 
witness  expressly  stated,  that  in  the  list  of  communicants,  he  did 
not  know  of  any  of  them  having  deceased. 

But  I  think  a  little  reflection  will  satisfy  the  committee  of  the 
great  injustice  of  imputing  blame  to  the  officers  of  Trinity  Church, 
because  some  names  were  found  in  her  lists  of  pew-holders,  of 
persons  who  were  dead  or  had  removed  from  the  city.  Suppose 
a  pew-holder  to  die;  does  not  his  family  continue  to  occupy  the 
pew — his  widow,  perhaps,  and  his  children  1  Pray,  in  whose 
name  should  the  pew  be  registered,  before  the  son  grows  up  to 
take  the  place  of  the  father  1  The  widow  cannot,  by  law,  be  a 
corporator.  And  what  injury  could  be  done  to  any  person,  if  the 
pew  continued  for  a  short  time  to  stand  in  the  name  of  the  late 
owner,. even  pending  the  settlement  of  the  estate  ?  Surely,  there 
can  be  no  danger  of  an  unlawful  vote  being  received  from  the 
person  whose  name  remains  thus  on  the  list  of  pew-holders  1 

It  may  happen,  also,  that  a  parishioner  may  pass  part  of  his 
time  in  the  country,  occasionally  coming  to  the  city  and  occupy- 


52 


ing  his  pew  ;  and  are  the  officers  of  the  Church  blameable,  in 
such  case,  for  keeping  his  name  on  tlie  list  of  corporators,  wiien 
it  may  well  be  doubted  whether  he  reside  in  the  city  or  not  1 
With  regard  to  the  list  of  communicants,  there  can  be  no  diffi- 
culty in  making  it  strictly  accurate,  and  Dr.  Haight  testifies  that 
he  makes  the  I'eturns  to  the  rector  annually  ;  but  with  regard  to 
the  list  of  pew-holders  there  may  well  be  much  difficulty.  But 
I  will  spend  no  more  time  on  this  topic.  It  seems  to  me  the 
charge  made  is  utterly  unworthy  of  having  been  formally  placed 
upon  the  files  of  the  Senate. 

The  act  of  1814  was  passed  for  the  purpose  of  defining  and  ex- 
plaining more  clearly  who  were  the  corporators  of  Trinity  Church 
and  of  putting  at  rest  the  doubts  which  had  arisen  in  conse- 
quence of  the  claim  made  by  two  or  three  members  of  other 
churches  to  vote  at  the  election  of  1812.  This  is  apparent  from 
the  preamble  of  the  act,  which  recites  that  Trinity  Church  asked 
that  further  legislative  provisions  may  be  made,  "for  the  pur- 
pose of  removing  cU  doubts  respecting  their  Charter  rights,  occa- 
sioned by  the  formation  of  other  religious  societies  in  the  said 
city  of  New-York."  It  is  clear  that  the  Legislature  did  not  sup- 
pose it  was  taking  away  the  right  of  any  corporator.  At  that 
time,  the  office  of  Attorney  General  of  this  State  was  filled  by 
that  eminent  jurist  and  good  man,  Abraham  Van  Vechten,  and 
the  matter  was  referred  to  him  by  the  Assembly  for  his  opinion. 
He  reported  as  follows :  "  That  he  has  examined  a  printed  copy 
of  the  charter  granted  in  the  year  1697  to  the  rector  and  inhabi- 
tants of  the  city  of  New  York,  as  then  established  by  law,  and 
the  acts  altering  the  said  charter,  together  with  the  bill  refered 
to  in  the  resolution  entitled,  "  an  act  to  alter  the  name  of  the 
corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of  New-York,  and  for 
other  purposes,"  and  he  is  of  opinion  that  the  purpose  of  the 
said  bill  will  not  defeat  or  vary  any  existing  vested  rights  under 
the  said  charter  and  acts." 

This,  gentlemen,  was  high  authority.  It  was  that  of  the  con- 
stitutional officer  of  the  government,  whose  duty  it  was  to  give 
opinions  in  such  cases.  This  opinion  was  given  with  ail  the  acts 
before  him  ;  at  a  time  when  he  had  certainly  a  much  better  op- 


53 


portunity  of  judging  than  we  have  now,  at  least  with  reference 
to  the  co-teniporaneous  construction  practically  given  to  those 
acts  by  the  parties  interested.  This  opinion  was  formed  and  ex- 
pressed with  all  the  advantages  which  a  period  of  time  forty-three 
years  earlier  afforded,  and  was  concurred  in  by  the  Legislature. 

Gentlemen — The  Legislature  of  1813  that  passed  that  act,  was 
one  of  the  ablest  that  ever  assembled  within  this  capitol.  Among 
its  members  were  Daniel  Cady,  Elisha  Williams,  J.  Rutsen  Van 
Rensselaer,  Josiah  Ogden  Hoffman,  Nathan  Sanford,  Morgan 
Lewis,  Erastus  Root  and  Martin  Van  Buren,  the  most  able  and 
distinguished  men  of  the  day — men  not  likely  to  fall  into  the 
error  of  invading,  by  their  legislation,  the  vested  rights  of  any 
citizen;  and  there  were  several  others  in  that  Legislature  whom  I 
ought,  perhaps,  to  have  named  in  the  same  list.  Six  of  these 
distinguished  men,  whose  portraits  now  grace  these  walls,  and 
who  are  looking  down  this  day  upon  our  doings,  were  concerned 
in  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814,  either  as  members  of  the  Legis- 
lature or  of  the  Council  of  Revision.  The  bill  did  not  pass  the 
Legislature  in  silence;  it  was  discussed  and  examined.  When 
it  came  before  the  Council  of  Revision,  objections  in  writing 
were  made  by  Chancellor  Lansing,  which,  on  further  examina- 
tion, were  abandoned  and  finally  voted  against  by  their  author. 
Those  were  honest  days,  Mr.  Chairman,  when  a  public  officer, 
who  had  been  misled  by  an  erroneous  impression,  might  well  be 
expected  to  acknowledge  hvs  error  and  correct  it.  I  hope,  sir, 
all  that  honesty  has  not  yet,  in  the  expressive  language  of  the 
Rev.  Jesse  Pound,  "  died  out."  For  this  honest  and.  frank  cor- 
rection of  an  opinion  by  Chancellor  Lansing,  his  memory  has 
been  recently  defamed  by  an  editor  of  a  newspaper  in  the  city  of 
New- York,  who  has  disgraced  himself  before  the  public,  by  im- 
puting to  the  venerable  Cliancellor  that  this  change  of  opinion 
was  obtained  by  corrupt  means.  Shame  upon  such  licentiousness 
of  the  press;  shame  upon  the  man  who  will  thus  assail  the 
memory  of  the  honored  dead — and  the  greater  be  the  shame  if 
the  slanderer  be  the  editor  of  a  newspaper  called  ^'  religious.' 
A  cause  must  be  desperate  that  requires  a  resort  to  such  dis- 
reputable means. 

We  suppose  then  that  the  act  of  1814  changed  no  chartered 
rights.    But  if  it  did,  the  change  was  made  with  the  consent  of  the 


54 


corporation  and  on  its  application.  The  Vestry,  in  its  corporate 
capacity,  is  the  authorized  and  legal  representative  of  all  the 
corporators.  The  Vestry  have  full  power  to  manage  and  con- 
trol the  affairs  of  the  corporation.  It  was  chosen  for  that  pur- 
pose. The  corporator  as  an  individual  has  no  power  of  man- 
agement. He  has  surrendered  all  power  to  the  Vestry  and  given 
into  its  keeping  his  legal  rights.  The  will  of  that  Vestry,  ex- 
pressed under  its  corporate  seal,  is  conclusive  of  the  will  of  all 
whom  the  Vestry  represents.  How  else  can  the  Legislature  deal 
with  the  corporators,  except  through  the  corporation  acting 
under  its  corporate  seal  ?  As  well  might  a  stockholder  in  a 
monied  corporation  question  the  vote  given  on  his  own  authorized 
proxy,  as  a  corporator  deny  the  validity  of  the  act  of  the  Vestry 
which  he  has  chosen  to  represent  him.  All  contracts  must  be 
made  with  the  corporation,  as  such,  not  with  the  individual 
members  of  it.  In  the  dealings  of  a  corporation,  corporators  are 
not  known  individually.  They  are  merged  in  the  body  corpor- 
ate. The  very  principle  of  their  organization  is  that  the  majority 
control  and  regulate  its  affairs,  and  the  ofiBcers  chosen  are  its 
agents. 

In  the  Bank  of  Augusta  vs.  Earle,  13  Peters,  587,  Ch.  J.  Taney 
says,  "  whenever  a  corporation  makes  a  contract,  it  is  the  cou/- 
tract  of  the  legal  entity — of  the  artificial  being  created  by  its 
charter;  and  not  the  contract  of  the  individual  members."  In 
the  Lincoln  and  Ken.  Bank  vs.  Richardson,  1  Greenleaf  Rep., 
79,  it  Avas  held  in  Maine,  that  the  stockholders  of  a  bank  are 
bound  by  every  act  which  amounts  to  an  acceptance  of  the  terms 
of  the  charter  on  the  part  of  the  directors.  See  also  Willcock  on 
Corporations,  2()2. 

The  assent  of  a  corporation  may  be  shewn  by  the  acts  of  its  oflS- 
cers  or  by  long  acquiescence.  (Ang.  and  Ames  on  Corp.  4  ed., 
§83;  U.  S.  vs.  Dandridge,  12  Wheaton  R.,  70,  71.)  Now,  in  this 
case,  there  is  no  question  of  the  assent  of  the  corporation.  The 
act  of  1814  was  petitioned  for  under  the  corporate  seal  of  the 
Church.  There  was  the  consent  of  the  Legislature  and  the  con- 
sent of  the  corporate  body,  making  a  complete  contract  between 
them.  Having  established  this  proposition,  I  pass  to  another 
point. 


55 


A  charter  is  a  contract  between  the  Legislature  and  the  cor- 
poration, made  by  the  assent  of  both  parties  ;  and  when  sucli 
charter  is  granted  and  accepted,  the  Legislature  has  no  power  to 
interfere  with  the  vested  rights  of  the  corporation,  because  such 
interference  would  be  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  art.  1,  s.  10,  which  declares  that  no  State  shall 
make  a  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts. 

This  rule  was  settled  in  the  case  of  Dartmouth  College  v. 
Woodward,  4  Wheaton  R.,  518,  to  which  all  subsequent  decisions 
have  conformed.  The  law  has  never  since  been  questioned. 
The  case  I  have  last  cited  was  that  of  a  charter  from  the  British 
Crown  to  the  trustees  of  Dartmouth  College,  in  New  Hampshire, 
in  1769,  and  it  was  held  to  be  a  contract  within  the  meaning  of 
that  clause  of  the  Constitution  to  which  'I  have  referred,  and 
that  it  could  not  be  altered  by  the  Legislature  without  its  con- 
sent. It  was  held  also  that  it  was  not  dissolved  by  the  revolu- 
tion. The  charter  of  Trinity  Church  stands  on  precisely  the 
same  footing.  It  was  granted  by  the  British  Government,  was 
not  dissolved  by  the  revolution,  but  was  in  fact  recognized  and 
confirmed  by  this  State,  (Const,  of  1777,  §  36),  and  it  is  not  in 
the  power  of  this  Legislature  to  alter  it,  in  any  material  respect, 
except  by  the  consent  of  the  corporation. 

If  then,  a  material  amendment  of  a  charter  can  only  be  made 
by  the  consent  of  the  corporation,  when  such  amendment  is 
made  as  was  done  in  this  case  by  the  act  of  1814,  by  the  consent 
of  both  the  Legislature  and  the  corporation,  it  is  a  new  or  modi- 
fied contract,  and  cannot  be  changed  back  without  the  consent 
of  the  corporation,  (1  Kent's  Com.  416,458;  3  Burr,  1656;  Rex  v. 
Passmore,  3  Term  R.  240;  4  Wheaton,  707).  "Nothing  seems 
better  settled,  (says  Mr.  Justice  Story,)  at  the  common  law, 
than  the  doctrine  that  the  crown  cannot  force  on  a  private  cor- 
poration a  new  charter,  or  compel  the  members  to  give  up  their 
own  franchises,  or  admit  new  members  into  the  corporation." 

The  only  exception  to  these  propositions  is  when  a  right  to  "re- 
peal, alter  or  modify"  is  reserved  in  the  act  of  incorporation;  and 
such  a  clause  has  been  inserted  in  all  special  charters  in  this 
State  since  the  decision  on  the  Dartmouth  College  case,  in  1819. 
(See  2  Kent  Com.,  7  ed.,  note  b.) 


56 


The  rule  of  law  I  have  been  discussing,  as  settled  by  the 
Dartmouth  College  case,  is  applicable  to  private  not  to  public  or 
municipal  corporations,  (4  Wheaton  518).  It  will  not  be  denied 
but  that  Trinity  Church  is  a  private  corporation.  "  Every  cor- 
poi-ation  is  private,  as  distinguished  from  public,  unless  the 
whole  interest  belongs  to  the  government,  or  it  is  vested  with 
political  or  municipal  power.''  This  is  the  definition  given  in 
Rundle  vs.  Del.  and  R.  canal, 1  Wallace  C.C.  R.,275;  see  also  2 Kent, 
305,  7th  ed.,  note  1.  I  concede,  that  in  regard  to  public  or  muni- 
cipal corporations,  such  as  cities,  towns  and  village?,  the  Legis- 
lature has  full  power  to  repeal  or  amend,  without  having  made  any 
reservation  of  power  in  the  charter,  and  without  the  consent  of 
the  corporation  ;  but  that  power  does  not  extend  to  private  cor- 
porations, such  as  colleges,  churches,  academies,  &c. ;  all  these 
come  within  the  law  as  adjudged  in  the  Dartmouth  College  case. 

We  claim  then,  that  the  act  of  1814  was  a  contract  between  the 
Legislature  and  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  putting  at  rest 
a  disputed  question,  and  passed  on  the  application  of  Trinity 
corporation  ;  and  that  there  is  no  power  in  this  Legislature  to 
repeal  it  or  to  change  any  material  part  of  it. 

Forty-three  years  have  elapsed  since  the  passing  of  the  act  of 
1814.  For  thirty-two  years  there  was  an  entire  acquiescence  on 
the  part  of  all  the  members  of  the  Episcopal  churches  in  the 
city  of  New- York.  This  is  clearly  proved  by  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Verplanck  and  Doct.  Berrian,  who  speak  from  actual  know- 
ledge, having  been  present  at  the  vestry  elections.  During  all 
that  long  period  of  time,  no  such  persons  offered  to  vote  at  the 
vestry  elections  of  Trinity  Church.  In  1846,  after  some  such 
person  had  applied  to  vote  at  such  an  election,  and  been  refused, 
certain  persons,  members  of  other  Episcopal  churches,  applied 
to  the  Legislature  to  repeal  the  act  of  1814,  and  the  application 
was  reported  against  by  a  committee  of  the  Senate,  and  refused. 
Nothing  daunted  by  that,  they  renewed  their  application  iu 
1847,  and  it  was  unanimously  reported  against  by  a  very  intel- 
ligent committee  of  the  Assembly,  consisting  of  seven  members, 
and  the  report  was  unanimously  concurred  in  by  the  Assembly. 
A  very  able  and  conclusive  report  was  then  made  against  the 
petition.  And  then  it  slept  ten  years  longer,  until  this  move- 
ment was  initiated,  not  openly,  as  before,  by  memorial,  and  ap- 


57 


prising  the  whole  world  of  their  object,  but  secretly,  slily  getting 
some  one  to  throw  in  a  resolution  just  at  the  close  ot  the  session, 
to  take  testimony  in  secret — hearsay  evidence — evidence  based 
on  mere  suspicion — much  of  it  given  by  witnesses  who  have  no 
personal  knowledge  of  the  facts  j  vague  and  very  erroneous 
opinions  of  the  law,  sworn  to  by  witnesses  and  made  evidence; 
and  a  copy  of  the  testimony  refused  to  be  given  to  the  officers  of 
Trinity,  till  it  should  first  have  been  reported  to  the  Senate  and 
made  public  to  the  whole  world.  It  is  in  such  a  proceeding, 
originated  and  carried  on  in  this  manner,  that  the  attempt  is 
again  made,  despairing  of  success  by  other  means,  to  repeal  the 
second  section  of  the  act  of  1814.  If  refused  hei-e,  as  I  trust  it 
will  be,  in  common  honesty,  then  ten  years  more  may  perhaps 
elapse  before  some  new  scheme  shall  be  devised  by  these  few  per- 
severing clergymen  and  laymen  to  accomplish  their  purpose. 
All  these  applications  have  been  made  by  the  same  persons,  and 
the  testimony  of  Mr,  John  R.  Livingston  fully  identifies  them  as 
the  same  persons,  also,  who  were  the  principal  witnesses  before 
this  committee  at  its  secret  sessions  in  New-York. 

The  lapse  of  forty-three  years  is  conclusive  against  any  sup- 
posed individual  claim  of  a  corporator.  It  is  a  lapse  of  time 
twice  that  which  is  required  to  bar  a  claim  to  real  property; 
seven  times  tliat  which  would  bar  an  action  on  contract;  four 
times  as  long  as  would  bar  any  equity  action,  and  longer  than 
is  required  even  against  a  claim  to  real  property  by  the  State. 
Now,  after  a  lapse  of  near  half  a  century,  contrary  to  all  sound 
principles,  an  attempt  is  made  to  open  and  renew  a  controversy 
long  since  disposed  of,  and  apparently  abandoned. 

If  the  courts,  even  in  mere  temporal  matters,  regard  the  statutes 
of  limitation  as  statutes  of  repose — as  salutary  means  of  terminat- 
ing strife  and  contention,  how  much  more  reason  is  there  for  the 
presumption  aiforded  by  lapse  of  time,  when  their  just  application 
Avill  secure  peace  to  a  large  and  respectable  body  of  the  christian 
church — will  save  funds  consecrated  to  pious  uses  from  being 
spent  in  litigation  and  strife,  and  will  calm  the  troubled  waters 
of  church  controversy^ 


58 


It  was  held  in  the  "  Winchelsea  cases,"  (4  Burr.  1962,)  that 
twenty  years  unimpeached  possession  of  a  corporate  franchise 
should  be  regarded  as  conclusive  evidence  of  right.  Twenty 
years  was  thus  adopted  as  the  legal  limitation,  beyond  which, 
even  as  to  a  private  corporation,  the  right  should  be  regarded  as 
established.  This  rule  of  the  common  law,  thus  declared  by 
Lord  Mansfield,  has  not,  I  believe,  been  questioned.  If,  in  the 
case  of  a  private  corporation ,  the  right  will  be  regarded  as  settled 
after  a  lapse  of  twenty  years,  can  it  be  supposed  that  an  indi- 
vidual corporator  will  be  permitted  to  allege  a  right  disposed  of 
and  acquiesced  in  forty-three  years  before  ? 

In  this  respect  the  act  of  1784,  under  which  the  right  to  vote 
is  claimed,  and  the  act  of  1814,  stand  on  the  same  footing.  Both 
were  amendments  of  a  charter  passed  by  the  Legislature,— the 
former  with  the  implied  and  the  latter  with  the  express  assent 
of  the  corporation.  Now,  if  individual  corporators  are  at  liberty 
to  go  back  to  the  act  of  1814,  on  the  ground  that  that  act  cut  off 
their  rights,  may  not  the  individual  communicants  of  Trinity 
parish  go  back  with  the  same  right  to  1784  and  complain  that 
that  act  infringed  upon  their  rights  as  corporators,  by  admitting 
as  voters  a  new  and  much  more  numerous  class,  viz  :  the  pew- 
holders ;  who  before  that  and  under  the  original  charter  had  no 
such  right  ? 

If  an  individual  may  go  back  forty- three  years  to  assert  such 
a  right,  it  cannot  change  the  question  if  twenty-eight  more  years 
be  added.  The  true  answer  in  both  cases  undoubtedly  is,  that 
in  neither  case  can  the  individual  corporator  have  any  right. 
The  consent  given  by  the  corporation — by  the  officers  who  re- 
present him — being  conclusive  against  his  claim. 

But  if  any  persons  were  deprived  of  a  right  by  the  act  of  1814, 
which  we  deny,  who  were  they  ?  Certainly  they  were  only  the 
persons  then  in  existence,  and  then  members  of  other  Episcopal 
Churches  in  New-York,  and  only  that  portion  of  those  who  did 
not  assent  to  the  action  of  the  Legislature.  Their  number  must 
have  been  very  small  at  that  time;  the  churches  generally  ap- 
proved of  the  application,  and  some  of  them  joined  in  it.  No 
such  persons  have  ever  appeared  here  and  asked  to  regain  a  lost 


59 


right.  I  doubt  if  any  of  them  are  in  existence.  A  person  who 
■was  of  age  in  1812  must  be  an  old  man  now;  and  in  the  changes 
by  removal  and  otherwise,  constantly  taking  place  in  the  city  of 
New-York,  the  chances  of  one  such  person  still  remaining  there 
are  very  small. 

The  movers  of  this  prosecution  are  new  men,  they  belong  to 
a  later  class;  some  of  them  have  been  residents  of  the  city  of 
New-York  but  a  short  time;  they  are  men  also  who  never  could 
have  had  any  interest  prior  to  the  act  of  1814;  and  there  is  no 
pretence,  certainly  no  proof,  that  they  were  aflected  by  its  pro- 
visions. It  is  plain,  I  think,  that  no  one  has  a  right  to  complain, 
unless  it  is  a  party  himself  aggrieved;  and  I  think  it  is  equally 
plain  that  as  to  all  others,  all  having  no  rights  when  an  act  was 
passed,  the  act  can  never  be  questioned. 

Two  or  three  of  the  clergymen  who  are  agitating  this  matter 
most  pertinaciously — who  were  witnesses  before  the  committee  at 
its  ex  parte  and  secret  session  in  the  city  of  New-York^ — most  of 
whom  are  proved  to  have  been  heretofore  applicants  to  the 
Legislature  on  this  subject,  and  who  I  am  told,  were  most  zeal- 
ously conspicuous  at  the  meeting  held  in  the  city  of  New-York 
a  few  evenings  ago,  are  now  in  charge  of  churches  which  have 
been  endowed  most  liberally  from  the  means  of  Trinity  Church; 
churches  which  released  long  ago  all  further  claims  upon  its 
bounty,  and  one  of  which  at  least,  and  I  think  more,  co-operated 
with  Trinity  church  in  the  application  upon  which  the  act  of 
1814  was  passed.*  I  have  before  me  a  letter  addressed,  on  the 
12tli  April,  1812, by  the  rector,  wardens  and  vestry  of  St.  Mark's 
church,  to  the  vestry  of  Trinity  churchy  from  which  I  make  the 
following  extract :  "  We  have  learned  with  regret  that  some  of 
our  Episcopal  brethren,  assert  the  claim  of  a  general  right  in  all 
the  Episcopal  churches  in  this  island  to  vote  at  your  elections 
for  church  wardens  and  vestrymen.  Whatever  color  may  be 
given  to  this  claim  by  any  ambiguous  words  to  be  found  in  your 
charter,  we  sincerely  take  pleasure  in  declaring,  that  the  congre- 
gation of  St.  Mark's,  which  we  represent,  have  no  desire  to  assert 
the  claim,  and  that  we  will  at  any  time  hereafter  cheerfully 

•  St.  George,  St.  Mark  and  Grace  Church  have  all  shared  liberally  in  the  bounty  of 
Trinity  Church. 


60 


unite  with  your  respectable  body  ia  an  application  to  the  Legis- 
lature, if  the  measure  shall  be  thought  expedient,  to  explain  the 
charter  and  confine  the  right  of  voting  to  the  congregations  of 
the  churches  under  your  iiumediate  government."  Justly  may 
we  exclaim,  "  Heu  pietas — heu  prisca  fides  !  " 

I  have  shown  that  to  authorize  members  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
corporations,  not  members  of  tlie  congregation  of  Trinity  Church 
or  its  chapels  to  vote  for  the  officers  ot  Trinity  Church,  would  be 
subversive  of  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  act  "regulating  Relig- 
ious societies,"  and  would  render  members  of  other  distinct  cor- 
porations members  of  two  distinct  religious  corporations  at  the 
same  time,  would  deprive  the  congregation  of  Trinity  Church  of 
the  power  of  choosing  their  own  rector  and  officers,  and  of  man- 
aging their  own  internal  affairs,  and  would  subject  them  to  the 
government  of  an  overpowering  multitude,  strangers  to  the  con- 
gregation and  interests  of  Trinity  Church.  Why,  gentlemen  of 
the  committee,  if  it  were  practicable  to  change  this  law  and  do 
this  great  wrong,  to  break  in  upon  the  established  usages  of  the 
Church  and  say  all  may  come  in  and  vote  here,  the  multitude 
that  would  assemble,  numbered  by  thousands,  would  rush  to  the 
Easter  elections  of  Trinity  Church,  each  in  the  eager  hope  of  se- 
curing the  choice  of  a  vestry,  who  would  give  the  larger  por- 
tion to  the  particular  Church  to  which  he  belonged— fifty  diffe- 
rent and  confli:ting  interests,  representing  that  number  of 
Churches,  would  struggle  for  the  mastery.  It  would  be  strange 
indeed  if  disgraceful  scenes  of  discord  and  strife,  and  perhap?  of 
violence,  were  not  the  fruits  of  such  an  organization.  Such 
would,  I  think,  be  the  inevitable  and  melancholy  results  of  the 
mistaken  efforts  of  those  who  ought  to  have  been  engaged  in 
preaching  "peace  on  earth  and  good  will  to  man"  instead  of 
calling  out  and  encouraging  the  worst  passions  of  our  nature. 

I  trust,  neither  this  committee  nor  the  honorable  body  which 
it  represents,  will  lend  its  sanction  to  a  scheme  so  mischevious. 
But  it  will  fall  far  short  of  its  duty  and  subject  itself  to  just  crit- 
icism hereafter,  if  it  fails  to  meet  this  question  firmly,  if  it  neg- 
lects to  rebuke,  in  a  conservative  spirit,  ana  in  strong  terms,  the 
agitators  who,  mistaking  their  duty,  have  urged  on  this  nefarious 
scheme  of  wrong  and  plunder. 


61 


Do  not  understand  me,  gentlemen,  as  speaking  disrespectfully 
of  these  men  as  individuals;  many  of  them  are  gentlemen  of  the 
highest  respectability,  and  of  great  moral  worth,  and  I  doubt  not 
they  are  "all,  all  honorable  men."  I  believe  if  they  could  look 
at  this  question  with  its  train  of  consequences,  from  a  diiferent 
and  more  disinterested  point  of  view,  they  would  be  quite  sur- 
piised  at  the  ncAv  aspect  it  would  assume. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  been  aware  of  some  of  the  extraordinary 
measures  which  have  been  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
judicing the  public  mind  in  advance,  on  the  questions  involved 
in  this  investigation,  but  I  had  not  been  informed  of  the  slan- 
ders which  had  been  circulated  out  of  doors  for  the  same  pur- 
pose, till  I  learned  it  during  the  examination.  Mr.  Verplanck 
was  asked  by  a  member  of  this  committee,  on  request,  (but  by 
whom  the  request  was  made  we  were  not  informed,)  whether 
Trinity  Church  has  recently  had  any  persons  employed  as 
counsel  or  otherwise,  now  belonging  or  attached  to  the  judicial, 
executive,  or  legislative  department  of  the  State  government  He 
answered  promptly  and  unqualifiedly,  that  no  such  person  liad 
been  employed,  and  that  from  his  position  on  committees  of  a 
legal  and  executive  character,  he  must  have  known  it  if  any 
such  person  had  been  employed,  now  or  for  some  years  past. 
Sir,  I  was  greatly  obliged  to  the  committee  for  putting  such  a 
question,  and  enabling  us  to  put  down  conclusively  and  forever 
the  slanders  referred  to.  Such  dishonorable  means,  when 
exposed,  cannot  fail  to  recoil  upon  those  who  employ  them. 
I  will  not,  sir,  retaliate.  But  we  are  not  to  forget  that  those 
who  are  urging  on  this  prosecution,  are  generally  men  of  large 
wealth  and  great  influence.  They  have  the  means  of  exerting 
undue  influence  even  more  ample  than  Trinity  corporation  itself. 
They  have  already  succeeded  in  enlisting  in  their  interests  men 
of  prominent  political  rank,  newspapers  of  influence,  and  men 
whom  I  meet  in  almost  every  part  of  the  capitol,  watching  the 
progress  and  caring  for  the  result  of  this  investigation.  One  of 
these  prosecutors  is  at  the  head  of  a  large  business  corporation, 
scattering  its  loans  on  mortgage  in  every  part  of  the  State.  While 
we  challenge  for  ourselves  and  all  our  acts  the  severest  scrutiny, 


63 


■we  shall,  if  occasion  calls  for  it,  demand  that  others  be  subjected 
to  the  same  test.  Trinity  Church  will  resort  to  none  except  the 
ordinary  and  legitimate  means  of  defence,  but  she  will  rely 
implicitly  upon  her  own  integrity,  upon  the  laws  of  the  country, 
and  the  conservative  spirit  in  which  they  should  be  admin- 
istered, to  protect  her  from  being  wronged. 

The  third  section  of  the  act  of  1814,  which  authorizes  Trinity 
Church  to  make  grants  of  land  to  other  religious  corporations, 
has  been  made  the  subject  of  criticism.  Under  our  general 
statute  for  the  incorporation  of  religious  societies,  no  religious 
corporation  could  sell  in  fee  any  real  estate  without  an  order  of 
the  Chancellor  (2  Kent's  Com.,  7th  ed.)  The  enactment  of  the 
section  in  question  was  certainly  a  great  convenience,  even  if  it 
was  not  indispensably  necessary,  under  an  ancient  rule  of  the 
common  law. 

The  sixth  section  of  the  act  of  1814  provides  that  when  a 
church  shall  have  exhibited  the  account  and  inventory  as  speci- 
fied in  the  ninth  section  of  the  act  entitled  "  An  act  to  provide 
for  the  Incorporation  of  Religious  Societies,"  it  shall  not  be 
necessary  for  such  church  again  to  exhibit  an  account  and  in- 
ventory, unless  such  church  shall  have  acquired  lands  within 
this  State  subsequent  to  the  exhibition  of  such  account  or  in- 
ventory. 

Trinity  Church  had  exhibited  such  account  and  inventory, 
and  has  since  doing  so,  acquired  no  additional  lands  in  this 
State.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  Senate  had  no  right  to  call 
for  the  returns  which  have  led  to  this  investigation.  The 
Senate  certainly  could  not,  by  resolution,  overrule  a  valid  and 
binding  act  of  the  Legislature,  and  Trinity  Church  had  a  per- 
fect right  to  decline  to  answer  and  could  not  justly  be  censured 
for  doing  so.  But  she  has  not  declined  to  answer;  entertaining 
a  profound  respect  for  the  Senate  and  an  abiding  confidence  in 
its  justice,  Trinity  Church  has  answered  fully. 

The  attempt  which  has  been  made  to  criticise  her  report,  as 
not  having  complied  technically  with  every  requirement  of  the 
resolutions  of  the  Senate,  is  equally  unworthy  and  unavailing. 


63 


Trinity  Church  was  not  called  upon  to  state  her  opinion  of  the 
value  of  each  lot;  but  she  was  asked  what  was  "the  estimated 
value  of  each  lot,"  and  she  answered  fully  and  fairly.  The 
value  of  the  lots  had  then  been  recently  estimated  by  the  sworn 
assessors  of  the  city,  and  nothing  could  be  fairer  than  to  return 
that  estimate,  stating  expressly,  as  she  did,  by  whom  it  was 
made.  The  value  was  a  matter  about  which  persons  might  well 
differ  in  opinion;  it  was  a  matter  about  which  two  of  the  gentle- 
men employed  by  the  prosecutors  here  to  appraise  the  lots,  did, 
in  fact,  differ  among  themselves  over  $670,000.  Mr.  Verplanck's 
testimony  shows  that  no  other  return  of  the  "  estimated  value  " 
could  have  been  made  than  that  which  was  made.  If  the 
vestry  had  attempted  to  appraise  it  themselves,  perhaps  no  two 
of  the  twenty-two  members  would  have  agreed  in  opinion.  It  is 
undoubtedly  true,  that  a  large  portion  of  these  lots  are  constant- 
ly rising  in  value,  and  are  now  more  valuable  than  when  appais- 
ed  by  the  assessors.  But  all  this  is  liable  to  change,  and  Mr. 
Verplanck  informs  us  that  in  some  parts  of  the  city  of  New  York, 
and  particularly  about  and  near  Hanover  square,  real  property 
has  depreciated  nearly  one  half  within  a  few  years.  The  same 
vicissitudes  may  occur  to  the  property  of  Trinity  Church,  when 
the  tide  of  business,  always  fluctuating,  shall  move  in  the  direc- 
tion of  some  other  part  of  the  city. 

While  on  this  subject,  Mr.  Chairman,  let  me  call  your  attention 
to  the  error  of  calculation  in  your  ex  ■parte  report,  testified  to  by 
Mr.  Skidmore,  by  which  you  erroneously  add  more  than  $1,400,- 
000  to  the  value  of  the  property  of  Trinity  Church.  While  you 
have  increased  largely  the  estimate  of  valuation  of  the  whole 
property,  you  have  deducted  for  the  leases  upon  the  former 
valuation.  It  should  not  be  forgotten,  that  the  present  value  of 
eleven  and  a  quarter  years'  interest  in  real  estate,  at  6  per  cent., 
is  equal  to  about  two-thirds  of  the  whole  value  of  the  property. 

But,  I  ask,  what  has  all  this  evidence  to  do  with  the  question 
of  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814?  Can  that  question  be  at  all 
affected  by  the  wisdom  of  the  policy  of  Trinity  Church,  or  the 
amount  of  her  grants,  or  the  objects  to  which  grants  have  been 
made  ?    May  not  Trinity  Church  do  what  she  will  with  her  own  1 


64 


Certainly,  neither  the  State  nor  an  individual  has  the  power  to 
question  that  right,  or  to  despoil  her  of  a  dollar  of  her  proj^erty, 
because  the  policy  which  has  governed  her  may  be  deemed  to 
have  been  unwise. 

But  Trinity  shrinks  from  no  investigation.  She  has  gone  into 
it  fully  and  openly — not  in  secret.  Her  defence  does  not  rest 
iipon  hearsay,  like  the  charges,  but  upon  positive  proof.  She 
calls  the  members  of  her  vestry  ;  those  who  must  know  best  ; 
who  alone  could  know  the  representations  made  by  each  applicant 
for  her  bounty,  and  disproves,  by  tlie  most  conclusive  evidence, 
every  insinuation  of  partiality  and  partisanship.  It  is  proved 
beyond  controversy,  that  no  grant  was  ever  made  or  denied  with 
reference  to  the  "  high  Church ''  or  "  low  Church ''  predilec- 
tions of  the  applicants.  Trinity  Church  has  shown  the  extent  of 
her  bounties,  and  the  too  liberal  devotion  of  her  means  to  purpo- 
ses of  religion,  education,  and  charity.  While  Trinity  Church 
has  aided  all  but  two  of  the  fifty  Churches  in  the  city  of  New- York, 
there  are  more  than  two  hundred  Churches  scattered  over  this 
great  State  that  have  been  relieved  and  fostered  by  her.  She  is 
indeed  the  alma  mater  of  them  all.  Though  the  property  belongs 
to  Trinity  alone,  and  she  is  a  trustee  in  no  legal  sense,  she  has 
been  able,  under  Providence,  to  accomplish  more  good  than  has 
ever  been  done  by  any  other  private  corporation  on  this  side  the 
Atlantic,  and  probably  in  the  world  ;  and  if  not  despoiled  of  her 
means  by  the  cupidity  which  corporate  wealth  is  apt  to  incite,  she 
will  go  on  in  her  high  mission  with  increased  ability  and  useful- 
ness. 

With  a  present  income  of  less  than  $100,000  per  annum, 
Trinity  Church  expends  the  whole  and  more  in  doing  good — 
not  in  extravagant  salaries  to  her  ministers — no  sir;  the  proof 
shows  that  the  clergy  of  Trinity  do  not  receive  but  about  one 
half  of  the  salary  that  is  paid  by  other  churches  to  some  of  her 
reverend  persecutors.  And  yet  these  faithful  ministers  of 
Trinity  may  safely  challenge  comparison  with  any  others  in  the 
world  in  the  extent  and  value  of  their  labors.  While  the 
wealthy  citizens  have  moved  up  town,  the  poor  have  been  left, 
scattered  through  the  lower  part  of  the  city.  With  these  poor 
are  Trinity  and  her  chapels  filled,  and  among  them  are  the 
faithful  ministers  of  Trinity  laboring  for  good.    They  give  them 


65 


instruction  and  advice  ;  they.pray  with  tliem  ;  they  baptize  their 
children  and  bury  their  dead.  Where  else  on  earth  can  you 
find  a  body  of  men  whose  duties  are  more  faithfully  or  more 
successfully  discharged  1 

Mr.  Chairman,  if  her  wealth  is  to  be  divided  it  will  of  course 
aid  the  other  churches  in  the  city  of  New-York,  your  own  among 
the  rest — but  she  becomes  at  once  powerless  to  do  good  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  city  ;  not  another  dollar  could  ever  afterwards 
be  given  to  the  country  churches.  Divided  among  fifty  churches 
in  the  city,  there  would  be  no  more  property  for  each  than  it 
would  desire  for  its  own  purposes.  The  fable  would  then  be 
realized  of  cutting  down  the  tree  to  enjoy  the  fruit. 

Those  who  serve  in  the  vestry  of  Trinity  to  dispense  this 
charily  are  men  of  the  highest  standing  in  the  community  in 
which  they  live.  For  160  years  the  affairs  of  Trinity  Church 
have  been  administered  by  a  long  line  of  eminent  men  with 
integrity  and  liberality.  The  purity  of  their  motives  has  never 
been  questioned,  it  is  conceded,  even  in  your  ex-parte  report, 
founded  on  suspicion  and  hearsay  evidence.  I  am  told  that  Mr. 
Jay,  an  opponent  of  the  views  and  policy  of  Trinity  Church, 
admitted  in  a  pamphlet  published  last  year,  that  no  great  trust 
was  ever  administered  for  so  long  a  time  with  such  unsullied 
purity.  Assailed  though  the  Church  has  been  at  different  times 
by  rapacious  claimants,  it  has  manfully  resisted  them,  and  faith- 
fully protected  the  fund,  till,  by  the  increase  of  the  city,  it  has 
become  a  large  estate. 

Mr.  Chairman,  has  not  such  a  party  when  accused,  a  claim 
not  only  upon  your  justice  and  forbearance  but  on  your  respect] 
Does  not  the  community  owe  it  its  thanks  for  all  the  good  which 
it  has  accomplished  ? 

Gentlemen,  the  case  is  now  before  you.  The  evidence  is  to 
be  printed.  Thank  God,  there  is  a  spirit  abroad  that  demands 
it,  and  that  will  secure  for  it  an  impartial  corisideyation.  W« 

5 


66 


are  ready  to  abide  by  the  result.  The  verdict  that  the  public 
shall  render  cannot  fail  to  be  a  triumph  to  those  men  who,  with 
no  interested  motives,  and  with  no  desire  except  to  accomplish 
the  greatest  practicable  amount  of  good,  have  given  their  time 
and  their  services  gratuitously  in  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church 
for  the  benefit  of  mankind. 


EEIONSTEANCE  AND  PROTEST 


OF  THE 


RECTOii,  CHURCH  WARDENS  AND  VESTRYMEN 


OP 


TRINITY  CHURCH, 

AGAINST  THE 


mm.  jiiiMiT,  iiDniii  in  Memii 


OF  THE 


A.CT  OF  1814 


EI 


RELATION  TO  THE  SAID  CORPORATION. 


ALBANY : 
PRINTED  BY  C.  VAN  EENTHUYSEN. 
407  Broadway. 

1857. 


j 


REMONSTRANCE 


To  the  Honorable,  the  Senate 

and  House  of  Assembly  of  the  State  of  J^ew-York: 

The  memorial  and  remonstrance  of  the  rector,  churchwardens 
and  vestr)'men  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New- York, 
Respectfully  Sheweth, 

That  your  memorialists  have  to  defend  themselves  against  an 
application,  understood  to  have  been  made  to  your  honorable 
bodies,  by  certain  persons  describing  themselves  as  inhabitants 
of  the  city  of  New-York,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  in  the  State  of  New- York,  for  the  repeal  or  modi- 
fiation  of  a  certain  law  passed  January  25th,  1814,  entitled  "  An 
act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in 
Nevv-York,  and  for  other  purposes." 

Your  memorialists  have  also  learned  with  surprise  and  regret 
that  a  bill  has  been  recently  introduced  into  the  Senate  intended 
to  impair,  if  not  to  destroy  the  rights  and  franchises  which  your 
memorialists  have  enjoyed  without  interruption  for  more  than 
a  century  and  a  half. 


4 


Your  memorialists  respectfully  represent  that  the  same  appli- 
cation was  made  to  the  Legislature  in  1846,  and  that  it  was  re- 
newed in  1847;  that  it  was  on  each  of  these  occasions  pressed 
with  great  zeal  and  activity,  that  it  was  supported  by  counsel 
of  eminence  who  were  fully  heard  on  behalf  of  the  applicants, 
and  that  its  merits  were  thoroughly  discussed  and  investigated, 
that  standing  committees  (of  the  Senate  in  1816  and  of  the 
House  of  Assembly  in  1847)  reported  against  it,  and  that  the 
Legislature  in  each  instance  refused  to  attempt  any  interference 
with  the  rights  of  your  memorialists. 

Your  remonstrants  respectfully  represent  to  your  honorable 
bodies,  that  when  the  said  act  of  25th  January,  1814,  was 
applied  for,  the  following  petition  for  the  same  (prepared  by  a 
committee  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  consisting  of  Richard 
Harison,  David  M.  Clarkson,  Thomas  Barrow,  Robert  Troup, 
Jacob  Le  Roy,  Peter  Augustus  Jay  and  Thomas  L.  Ogden,)  was 
presented  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  viz. : 

"  To  the  Honorable,  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New- York : 

"  The  petition  of  the  rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- 
York,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in 
the  State  of  New-York, 

"  Respectfully  sheweth, 

"  That  so  long  ago  as  in  the  year  one  thousand  six  hundred 
and  ninety-seven,  your  petitioners  were  incorporated  by  letters 
patent  under  the  great  seal  of  the  colony  of  New-York,  and  have 
ever  since  continued  to  be  a  body  politic  and  corporate,  by 
virtue  of  their  said  charter. 

"  That  at  the  time  of  granting  the  same,  it  was  contemplated 
that  Trinity  Church  therein  mentioned,  should  be  the  sole  and 
only  parish  church  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  denomination  in 
the  said  city,  and  that  in  fact  it  continued  to  be  so  until  the 
revolution  by  which  the  independence  of  the  United  States  was 
obtained,  and  for  a  number  of  yeai-s  after  that  memorable  epocii. 

"  That  soon  after  tlie  revolution  above  mentioned,  an  act  of 
the  Legislature  passed  for  making  such  alterations  in  the  charter 


5 


of  the  corporation  of  Trinity'Cliurch  as  to  render  it  more  conform- 
able to  the  Constitution  of  the  State;  by  one  clause  whereof  all 
the  rights,  privileges,  benefits  and  emoluments  which  in  and  by 
the  said  charter  were  designed  to  be  secured  to  the  inhabitants 
of  the  city  of  New- York  in  communion  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land, were  conferred  upon  all  persons  professing  themselves 
members  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  who  should  hold,  occupy,  or 
enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in  the  said  church  and  should  regularly  pay 
to  the  support  of  said  church  and  such  others  as  should  in  the 
said  church  partake  of  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  sup- 
per at  least  once  in  every  year,  being  inhabitants  of  the  said  city. 

"That  since  the  passing  of  the  act  above  referred  to,  the  pew- 
holders  of  Trinity  Church  and  of  the  churches  or  chapels  be- 
longing to  the  said  corporation,  and  the  regular  communicants 
therein,  have  been  the  only  persons  admitted  to  vote  at  elections 
for  church  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  the  said  corporation  ac- 
cording to  the  just  and  fair  construction  contemporaneously  and 
ever  since  given  to  the  said  act. 

"Your  petitioners  beg  leave  further  to  shew,  that  in  conse- 
quence of  the  rapid  and  unexampled  increase  and  prosperity  of 
our  country  since  the  said  revolution,  and  the  corresponding 
growth  and  population  of  the  city  of  New- York,  Trinity  Church 
aforesaid,  with  the  churches  and  chapels  belonging  to  its  corpo- 
ration, became  insufficient  for  the  accommodation  of  all  the  in- 
habitants of  said  city  who  professed  themselves  members  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  or  wished  to  become  so,  on  which 
account  and  for  a  variety  of  other  reasons  not  necessary  to  be  sug- 
gested, numerous  persons  of  this  description  have  been  induced 
from  time  to  time,  to  form  themselves  into  distinct  cori^orations, 
each  having  its  own  peculiar  endowments  and  places  of  worship, 
with  rectors  and  other  officers  of  their  own  choice,  totally  inde- 
pendent of  any  control  or  interference  of  your  petitioners. 

"That  a  number  of  such  religious  corporations  have  accord- 
ingly been  organized  as  the  law  directs,  some  with,  and  some 
without  the  concurrei:ce  of  your  petitioners,  to  all  wiiich  your 
petitioners  have  made  liberal  donations,  and  with  whose  internal 


6 


concerns  your  petitioners  or  any  of  the  member  of  the  corpora- 
tion of  Trinity  Church,  as  such,  do  not  claim  any  right  to  inter- 
meddle, nor  do  the  said  corporations  possess  or  claim  any  right 
for  themselves  or  their  members  to  vote  in  the  elections,  or  re- 
gulate the  affairs  of  Trinity  Church. 

"Nevertheless,  a  few  individuals  belonging  to  such  separate 
corporations,  have  recently  pretended  to  claim  that  right,  and 
at  the  last  annual  election  of  church  wardens  and  vestrymen  of 
Trinity  Church,  held  in  the  month  of  March,  in  the  year  1812, 
two  or  three  persons,  being  members  of  incorporated  churches 
separate  and  distinct  from  your  petitioners,  tendered  themselves 
as  voters;  but  their  votes  under  an  ordinance  previously  passed 
by  your  petitioners  were  rejected,  and  no  measures  have  been 
yet  taken  to  enforce  or  establish  the  right  so  claimed. 

"It  must  be  obvious,  however,  that  attempts  of  this  nature 
cannot  fail  to  produce  strife  and  litigation,  and  to  foster  and 
keep  alive  pretensions  of  the  most  unreasonable  nature,  .and  of 
the  most  mischievous  tendency. 

"Your  petitioners  are,  moreover,  sensible  that  since  the  forma- 
tion of  such  distinct  corporations,  the  corporate  name  by 
which  your  petitioners  are  designated  has  become  inapplicable, 
and  ought  to  be  changed;  as  they  do  not  comprehend  in  their 
body  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  who  now  pre- 
fess  to  be  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church;  and  your  peti- 
tioners are  further  convinced  that  it  has  become  essential  to  the 
peace  and  harmony  of  said  church,  that  all  doxibts  respecting 
the  persons  entitled  to  vote  for  church  wardens  and  vestrymen 
of  Trinity  Church,  which  may  exist  or  arise  in  consequence  of 
the  said  separate  incorporations,  should  be  finally  obviated  and 
settled. 

"Your  petitioners  beg  leave  further  to  represent  that  the  law 
which  requires  religious  corporations  in  New-York,  Albany  and 
Schenectady,  to  exhibit  an  inventory  and  account  of  their  es- 
tates and  revenue  at  certain  periods,  is  attended  with  consider- 
able expense  and  trouble  without  producing  any  valuable  eflfects, 
that  after  such  inventory  and  account  has  once  been  exhibited 


7 


it  cannot  be  useful  to  exhibit  it  again,  unless  the  corporation 
shall  acquire  farther  estates,  and  that  as  far  as  the  corporation 
of  Trinity  Church  is  concerned  they  have  hitherto  complied  with 
the  law  and  hold  no  property,  (their  communion  plate  and 
chui-ch  furniture  excepted,)  other  than  what  they  held  and 
were  possessed  of  long  before  the  said  revolution  and  are  legally 
entitled  to  hold  by  the  charters  and  grants  of  the  ancient  go- 
vernment, confirmed  and  established  by  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  ;  though  your  petitioners  have  greatly  diminished  that  pro- 
perty by  grants  and  donations  to  Columbia  College,  to  a  free 
school  which  the  Legislature  has  incorporated,  to  a  society  form- 
ed for  the  promotion  of  religion  and  learning  ;  and  to  many 
churches  and  religious  societies,  not  only  in  the  city  of  New- 
York,  but  elsewhere  in  different  parts  of  the  State. 

"  Your  petitioners,  therefore,  pray  that  your  honorable  body 
will  pass  an  act  for  altering  the  name  of  their  incorporation,  and 
also  to  obviate  and  settle  the  questions  that  might  arise  in  con- 
sequence of  incorporating  other  Episcopal  congregations  in  the 
city  of  New- York,  and  to  do  away  the  necessity  of  such  inven- 
tory and  account  being  exhibited  more  than  once,  unless  upon 
the  acquisition  of  additional  property,  by  religious  corporations. 

"  And  your  petitioners  will  ever  pray,  &c. 

"  By  order  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of 
New-York. 

\l.  s.]  T.  L.  OGDEN,  Clerk.'' 

Your  remonstrants  further  respectfully  represent  that  the  said 
petition  was  true  in  every  particular,  that  it  received  the  favora- 
ble attention  of  the  Legislature,  that  the  bill  brought  in  pursu- 
ant to  its  prayer  was  popular  in  both  houses  of  the  Legislature 
and  passed  by  large  majorities. 

That  the  application  for  said  bill  and  the  fact  that  it  was 
pending  in  the  Legislature  were  notorious,  and  were  the  subject 
of  public  discussion  in  the  city. 

That  said  bill  was  fully  debated  and  discussed  at  the  several 
stages  of  its  passage  through  the  Legislature  ;  that  the  House  of 
Assembly  before  acting  on  it  called  on  the  eminent  Abraham 


8 


Van  Vecliten,  then  Attorney  General  of  the  State,  for  his  opinion 
on  the  questions  of  right  alleged  to  have  been  affected  by  it,  and 
that  that  officer  returned  it  as  his  opinion,  that  the  proposed  bill, 
if  passed,  would  not  vary,  affect  or  divest  any  existing  riglit. 

That  objections  were  made  to  it  in  the  council  of  revision,  on 
which  that  board  was  equally  divided,  so  that  the  bill  became  a 
law  in  conformity  with  the  then  existing  Constitution,  the  coun- 
cil of  revision  having  taken  no  order  upon  the  subject. 

Your  remonstrants  further  represent,  that  if  tlie  law  of  1814, 
had  not  been  passed,  the  reasons  urged  in  the  above  petition 
would  apply  to  the  present  day  with  much  greater  force  tlian 
they  did  then,  and  justice  and  public  policy  would  now  require 
the  passage  of  a  declaratory  act  to  the  same  effect. 

Your  remonstrants  further  represent,  that  the  law  in  question, 
while  pending  before  the  Legislature,  received  the  general  ap- 
probation and  support  of  the  Episcopal  inhabitants  of  the  city 
of  New-York.  That  it  has  now  been  constantly  acted  on  and 
acquiesced  in  for  forty-three  years,  with  the  single  exception, 
that  at  the  annual  election  in  1844,  at  a  time  of  uncommon  ex- 
citement in  the  Protestant  Epis  copal  church,  one  person,  (a  gen- 
tleman of  the  legal  profession,)  claimed  the  right  to  vote  ;  admit- 
ting at  the  same  time,  that  he  had  never  communed  in  Trinity 
church  or  in  either  of  its  chapels  ;  that  he  did  not  own  or  hire  a 
pew  or  seat  in  any  or  either  of  them,  and  had  never  contributed 
to  the  support  of  Trinity  Church.  That  the  vote  thus  tendered 
was  rejected,  and  that  its  rejection  was  acquiesced  in  without 
any  attempt  to  establish  by  judicial  proceedings,  the  claim  thus 
set  up. 

Your  remonsti'ants  further  represent  that  there  are  now  fifty 
separate  and  distinct  Protestant  Episcopal  church  corporations 
or  parishes  in  the  city  of  New-York,  (instead  of  the  nine  which 
existed  in  the  year  1814,)  besides  the  corporation  and  parish  of 
Trinity  Church. 

Your  remonstrants  further  represent  that  all  the  said  new  church- 
es have  been  assisted  by  donations  from  the  property  and  funds  of 


9 


your  remonstrants  except  two  of  them  which  never  applied  for 
such  aid,  that  such  donations  or  endowments  have  in  several  in- 
stances (as  in  those  of  Grace  Church,  St.  Mark's  and  St.  George's,) 
been  of  very  large  amount,  and  that  your  remonstrants  have  dur- 
ing the  last  forty  years,  also  largely  contributed  to  new  churches 
in  every  part  of  the  State,  so  that  the  income  of  the  corporation 
has  never  been  at  all  equal  to  its  expenditures,  the  deficiency 
being  supplied  by  sales  of  real  estate  and  by  loans. 

Your  remonstrants  further  represent,  that  elections  in  Episco- 
pal churches  are  usually  conducted  without  excitement  and  are 
almost  always  nearly  or  quite  unanimous,  accordingly  it  seldom 
happens  that  more  than  twenty  votes  (if  so  many)  are  polled, 
whatever  may  be  the  number  of  the  constituency.  The  same 
remarJs;  is  believed  to  apply  to  elections  held  in  incorporated 
charitable  and  literary  societies  generally.  That  in  the  corpo- 
rate elections  of  Trinity  church,  when  there  is  no  contest,  the  num- 
ber of  votes  is  generally  small.  That  no  inference  can  fairly  be 
drawn  from  the  neglect  of  corporators  to  exercise  their  right  of 
voting;  except  that  they  are  entirely  satisfied  with  the  manage- 
ment of  the  corporate  body  to  which  they  belong;  that  there  is 
no  obstacle  in  the  way  of  persons  being  admitted  corporators  of 
that  church,  the  sole  conditions  being,  that  they  shall  duly  at- 
tend the  services  of  the  church,  and  hold  a  pew  or  partake  of 
the  holy  communion  in  said  church,  or  own  a  pew  therein  or 
hire  it  from  the  church ;  and  that  all  or  any  of  the  petitioners 
for  the  repeal  of  this  act,  could  have  become,  and  still  can  be- 
come members  of  the  corporation,  by  complying  with  these  con- 
ditions, which  are  not  only  reasonable  in  themselves,  but  con- 
sistent with  the  usage  and  practice  of  all  religious  societies  of 
every  denomination  of  Christians  throughout  the  State. 

Your  remonstrants  further  represent  that  the  said  act  of 
1814  was  passed  at  a  time  when  harmony  had  just  been  restored 
in  the  parish  after  a  long  and  exciting  personal  controversy,  and 
was  intended  to  preserve  order  and  harmony  in  a  numerous  re- 
ligious communion.  This,  it  has  happily  effected  and  maintain- 
ed, for  more  than  two  generations. 

2 


10 


Your  remonstrants  further  submit,  tliat  the  question  of  the 
propriety  of  the  act  of  1814,  has  been  three  times  considered  in 
the  Legislature  :  first,  at  tlie  time  of  its  passage;  second,  in  1846, 
by  tlie  Senate;  and  third,  in  1847,  by  the  Assembly.  Persons 
not  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  Church,  but  mem- 
bers of  other  church  corporations,  claiming  to  be  corporators  of 
your  memorialists,  have  never  sought  to  establish  their  claims 
by  the  decision  of  a  court  of  justice.  No  obstacle  prevented 
their  doing  so,  either  before  or  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of 
1814.  If  that  act  was  unconstitutional,  as  it  is  urged,  it  inter- 
posed no  obstacle  at  any  time.  It  v/as  simply  void.  But  it 
was  impracticable  for  your  memorialists  to  test  the  question  in 
any  such  mode.  All  they  could  do  was  to  reject  the  votes  of 
such  persons  when  offered.  It  rested  with  the  claimants,  and 
with  them  alone,  to  bring  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  the 
courts.  And  should  the  Legislature  pass  an  act  in  its  terms 
purporting  to  repeal,  alter  or  amend  the  law  of  1814,  above  re- 
ferred to,  then,  your  memorialists,  insisting  as  they  would,  that 
the  law  of  1814  forms  a  part  of  their  charter,  and  cannot  be  re- 
pealed, altered  or  amended,  without  their  consent,  the  question 
of  the  constitutionality  of  that  law,  and  the  further  question, 
whether  it  has  not  been  substantially  acquiesced  in  by  all  per- 
sons interested,  must  still  remain  to  be  determined  by  the  courts. 
The  same  points  of  dispute  which  now  exist  would  still  continue, 
and  the  further  one  be  added,  as  to  the  right  of  the  Legislature 
to  interpose  in  the  mode  suggested. 

Your  remonstrants  humbly  submit,  that  after  these  repeated 
decisions  by  the  Legislature,  and  the  acknowledged  neglect  of 
the  parties  complaining  to  assert  their  alleged  rights  in  a  court 
of  justice,  the  law  of  1814  above  referred  to  ought  to  be  left  undis- 
turbed until  those  who  complain  of  it  shall  establish  its  uncon- 
stitutionality in  th''  courts,  the  only  proper  tribunals  for  the 
decision  of  such  questions.  And  that  the  undisturbed  possession 
of  your  memorialists  under  that  law  for  forty-three  years,  of  the 
corporate  rights,  franchises  and  property  it  professed  to  give  or 
to  confirm,  ought  on  the  strongest  grounds  of  public  policy,  to 
have  the  same  operation  in  perfecting  the  title  of  your  remon- 


11 


strants  and  securing  them  against  hostile  claims,  which  a  like 
possession  for  less  than  half  that  peiiod,  has  on  any  other  pri- 
vate right  or  property,  however  acquired.  They  submit  that 
the  public  confidence  in  the  stability  and  security  of  all  property 
and  piivate  right  will  be  seriously  shaken,  should  the  Legisla- 
ture repeal  or  interfere  with  a  grant  of  corporate  franchises,  after 
a  lapse  of  nearly  half  a  century,  for  the  express  purpose  of  ena- 
bling parties  to  revive  and  re-open  a  question,  which  if  it  ever 
existed  except  in  name,  has  been  long  since  disposed  of. 

Tour  remontrants  further  state  that  the  pewholders  and  com- 
municants in  the  churches  of  their  communion  in  this  city  who 
would  or  might  be  qualified  to  vote  for  parochial  oflficers  of 
Trinity  Church  under  the  proposed  act,  are  many  thousands  in 
number,  and  may  become  much  larger  in  the  ordinary  state  of 
things.  But,  moreover,  whenever  (as  might  frequently  be.  the 
case)  motives  or  hopes  of  pecuniary  profit  were  presented,  this 
number  would  be  swelled  by  a  host  of  others,  excited  by  the 
expectation  of  gain,  who  without  any  sympathy  of  opinion  or  of 
feeling  with  the  Episcopal  or  any  other  religious  body,  could  be 
constituted  nominal  Episcopalians  and  legal  voters  at  an  easy 
rate.  Thus,  considering  the  various  doctrinal  differences,  tem- 
poral interests  and  selfish  aims  that  may  exist  among  so  large  a 
number,  the  facility  with  which  that  constituency  may  be  in- 
creased for  personal  purposes  in  times  of  partizan  excitement, 
the  certainty  that  such  excitement  would  be  of  frequent  recur- 
rence, if  not  invariable;  at  every  election  where  an  endowment 
so  greatly  exaggerated  and  over-estimated  by  public  opinion, 
would  be  the  prize  of  the  contest,  this  act  if  carried  into  opera- 
tion would  inevitably  fill  not  only  the  parish  of  your  remon- 
strants, but  every  other  parish  in  the  city,  with  discord,  confu- 
sion and  personal  animosities. 

Tour  remonstrants,  in  referring  to  the  fact,  that  while  the  ad- 
ministration of  this  corporation  has  been  assailed  on  almost  eve- 
ry other  point,  no  imputation  nor  even  insinuation  has  ever 
been  made,  that  either  the  present  or  any  former  vestry,  or  any 
of  their  members,  have  ever  been  influenced  in  the  discharge  of 


12 


their  duties,  by  any  corrupt  motive  or  by  considerations  of  per- 
sonal interest,  may  perhaps,  without  indelicacy,  be  permitted  to 
say,  that  while  they  regard  the  observance  of  strict  personal  in- 
tegrity in  the  administration  of  such  a  trust,  as  a  matter  of  such 
obvious  and  imperative  duty  as  to  call  for  no  commendation,  yet 
the  fact  that  in  the  long  history  of  this  corporation,  no  instance 
of  the  violation  of  this  duty  has  ever  occurred  or  even  been  sug- 
gested, is  not  without  its  weight  as  an  attestation  to  the  utility, 
efl&ciency  and  security  attending  the  working  of  the  system  as  it 
now  exists. 

The  proposed  measure  is  founded  on  two  reports  made  to  the 
Senate,  embodying  broad  and  strong  censure  on  youi-  remon- 
strants' execution  of  their  duties.  Your  remonstrants  respect- 
fully represent  that  these  charges  are,  in  their  judgment,  un- 
suppoited  by  the  evidence,  and  they  respectfully  refer  the  Leg- 
islature of  the  State  for  the  protection  of  your  remonstrants' 
rights,  and  their  fellow-citizens  for  the  vindication  of  their  char- 
acter, to  the  testimony  itself,  whether  produced  for  or  against 
them.  They  con^dently  believe,  that  while  most  of  the  adverse 
testimony  will  be  found,  on  examination,  to  be  vague,  matters  of 
opinion,  or  hearsay  on  second  or  third  hand  information,  on  the 
other  hand  the  positive  testimony  of  those  actually  acquainted 
with  all  the  facts  of  the  management  and  application  of  the  pro- 
perty will  show,  that  the  charges  brought  against  your  remon- 
strants are  without  foundation ;  and  they  appeal  to  such  testi- 
mony with  entire  confidence,  even  though  that  produced  against 
them  was  taken  privately  and  exparte,  your  remonstrants  not 
having  been  present  to  demand  from  those  who  gave  it,  further 
explanations  or  specifications  of  names,  dates  and  facts.  They 
feel  confident  that  the  examination  and  comparison  of  the  whole 
body  of  testimony  will  prove  to  the  Legislature,  that  your  re- 
monstrants have  had  steadily  in  view  in  the  management  and 
application  of  their  funds,  the  support  of  the  Gospel  audits  min- 
istration, and  the  promotion  of  religion,  morals  and  education, 
Avherever  their  aid  could  be  most  effectual  in  this  city  and 
throughout  the  whole  State.  That  testimony  shows,  that  if  in 
any  instance,  sucla  application  of  their  funds  was  ill-judged, 


13 


it  arose  not  from  personal  or  partizan  motives,  but  from  an  error 

of  judgment,  incident  to  all  human  counsels,  whilst  in  general 
their  endeavors  have  been  largely  blessed  in  promoting  the  best 
interests  of  society. 

In  conclusion,  your  remonstrants  respectfully  claim  that  the 
law  in  relation  to  your  remonstrants  passed  in  1814  and  above 
referred  to,  forms  a  part  of  the  charter  of  this  corporation,  grant- 
ed by  the  State  and  accepted  by  your  remonstrants,  and  that  the 
same  cannot  be  repealed,  amended,  modified  or  altered  without 
their  consent.  Such  consent  your  remonstrants  are  compelled 
by  a  sense  of  duty  to  withhold,  and  against  any  repeal,  amend- 
ment, modification  or  alteration  of  the  act  in  question,  they  pray 
leave  hereby  firmly,  but  most  respectfully  to  protest. 

And  your  remonstrants  will  ever  pray,  &c. 

By  order  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of 
New- York. 


[L.  S.J 


WILLIAM  BERRIAN,  D.D.,  Rector. 
WM.  E.  DUNSCOMB,  Comptroller. 
RICH'D  H.  OGDEN,  Clerk. 


Wta.  E.  Dunscomb, 
Robert  Hyslop, 


Church  Wardens. 

Rich'd  H.  Ogden, 
Cyrus  Curtiss, 
George  P.  Cammann. 
Abel  T.  Anderson, 
F.  Pentz, 
James  I.  Jones, 
Jos:  Delafield, 
Abraham  B.  Sands, 
John  A.  Dix, 

Vestrymen. 


Henry  Youngs, 
Alex'r  Z.  McDonald, 
G.  C.  Verplanck, 
Anthony  J.  Bleecker, 
John  R.  Livingston, 
Geo.  T.  Strong, 
Sam'l  T.  Skidmore, 
W.  H.  Falls, 
Gouv:  M.  Ogden, 


DEBATES 


ON  THE 


TRINITY  CHURCH  BILL, 


m  THE 


SENATE  OF  THE  STATE  OF  NEW  FORK. 


REPORTED  BY  DOUGLAS  A.  LEVIEN. 


J. 


ALBANY: 
MUNSELL,  78  STATE  STREET. 
1  8  5  7. 


LEGISLATIVE  DEBATES 

ON  THE 

AFFAIRS  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH. 


IN  SENATE ....  March  25, 1837 . 

Immediately  after  Executive  Session,  the 
President  announced  the  Special  Order,  being 
the  bill  to  amend  the  act  of  1814,  rslating  to 
Trinity  Churcli. 

Mr.  Brooks  said  : — 

Mr.  President :  Before  the  Senate  go  into  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  I  shall  beg  leave  to  offer  a 
substitute  for  the  Bill  reported  by  the  Select 
Committee.    It  does  not  emanate  from  myself, 
but  from  one  for  whom  I  entertain  the  highest 
respect;  from  one  of  the  most  emiaent  rectors 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  who  officiates  himself 
over  six  hundred  communicants.    The  substi- 
tute proposes,  if  possible  in  the  form  of  statute, 
a  reconcilement  of  the  differences  of  opinion  un- 
( fortunately  existing  between  the  Episcopalians 
I  belonging  to  the  different  Churches  in  the  city. 
1  If  any  good  should  come  from  such  a  recom- 
j  mendatiou,  and  it  should  result  in  a  peaceful 
solution  of  long  existing  and  growing  difficulties, 
it  will  be  a  subject  of  general  congratulation 
among  a  large  portion  of  the  Christian  commu- 
nity. 

In  presenting  this  bill,  I  desire  to  say  that  I 
do  not  commit  myself  for  or  against  its  p'ovis- 
ions.  If  it  should  become  the  basis  of  recon- 
ciliation, I  shall  be  most  happy  in  having  in 
any  manner  contributed  to  so  desirable  a  result. 
Thj  character  of  the  author,  and  the  great  im- 
portance of  the  subject  under  consideration 
prompt  me  to  offer  it  at  this  time,  and  to  ask 
that  it  may  be  printed. 

Mr.  Noxon  ; — Mr.  President : — I  call  for  the 
reading  of  the  bill  at  this  time. 

The  bill  was  then  read.  It  provides  as  fol- 
lows : — 

§  1  In  addition  to  the  persons  entitled  to  vote 
at  the  elections  of  Church  Wardens  and  Vestry- 
men of  Trinity  Church  in  New  York,  under  the 
second  section  of  the  act  entitled  "  an  act  to  al- 
ter the  name  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church 
in  New  York,  and  for  other  purposes,"  passed 
January  25,  1814,  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New  York,  in  communion  with  any  other  of  the 
P.  E.  Churches  in  the  said  city,  now  or  hereafter 
in  union  with  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of 
New  York,  shall  hereafter  be  entitled  to  partici- 


pate in  such  election  to  the  extent  and  in  the 
manner  following: — 

The  Vestry  of  every  such  Church  shall  yearly 
on  or  before  the  1st  of  March,  select  live  mem- 
bers from  their  body  by  the  written  act  of  a  ma- 
jority of  their  number ;  which  act  shall  be  duly 
certified  by  the  Rector  or  Clerk  of  said  Vestry. 

The  five  persons  so  to  be  selected,  shall  each 
be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  annual  election  then 
next  ensuing,  for  Church  Wardens  and  Vestry- 
men of  Trinity  Church  aforesaid ;  but  no  one 
shall  be  elieible  except  a  pew  holder  or  commu- 
nicant of  full  age  iu  said  Trinity  Church  or  one 
of  its  chapels. 

^  2  The  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  afore- 
said, shall  apply  all  its  annual  income  and  the 
proceeds  of  the  sale  of  any  of  its  property,  to  the 
payment,  first,  of  the  interest  on  its  debt;  and 
next,  to  the  extinguishment  of  such  portion  of 
the  principal  as  its  vestry  may  deem  expedient ; 
and  after  duly  providing  for  the  proper  support 
of  its  parish,  the  Vestry  shall  apply  the  remain- 
ing income  and  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  its  prop- 
erty to  the  support  and  extension  of  religion  in 
the  P.  E.  Church  in  the  city  and  State  of  Now 
York. 

§  3.  The  said  corporation  shall  yearly,  on  or 
before  the  1st  of  February,  furnish  to  each  of  the 
P.  E.  Churches  iu  said  city,  in  union  with  the 
Diocese  of  New  Yort,  a  list  of  the  pew  holders 
and  communicants  eligible  as  Church  Wardens, 
and  Vestrymen  as  aforesaid  ;  and  also  a  full  ac- 
count of  its  receipts  and  expenditures  during  the 
year  next  preceding. 

Mr.  Brooks  : — Mr.  President,  I  merely  wish  to 
remark  again  that  this  bill  emanates  from  a 
source  highly  conservative  in  its  character,  and 
seeks  to  reconcile  the  differences  at  present  so 
unhappily  existing.  If  ihe  measure,  during  the 
progress  of  the  discussion,  should  meet  the  views 
of  the  Senate,  and  form  the  basis  of  conciliation, 
I  shall  be  glad  that  I  have  introduced  it.  If  it 
be  a  source  for  fuither  differences  of  opinion,  I 
shall  deem  it  my  duty  to  withdraw  it.  If  it 
should  not  meet  the  views  of  the  Senate,  and  we 
should  be  called  upon  to  consider  the  Commit- 
tee's bill,  irrespective  of  this  substitute,  I  shall 
then  deem  it  my  duty  to  offer  some  amendments. 


2 


The  first  will  be  to  protect  Trinity  Church, 
and  her  three  Chapels,  St.  Charles,  St.  Pauls  and 
St.  Johns,  on  the  face  of  the  bill,  in  all  their 
possessions  of  Church  edifices,  burial  grounds, 
adjacent  lands  and  Church  prop'^rty  of  all  kinds 
and  conditions.  Tlie  second  will  be,  to  see  that 
such  ample  provisions  are  made  as  will  secure 
the  propcT  acknowledgment  of  all  debts  and  ob- 
ligations incurred  by  Trinity  Corporation,  and 
to  secure  their  eventual  payment. 

It  is  probable  that  I  shall  also  propose  a  third 
amendment  designed  to  meet  the  objection  which 
has  sprung  up  from  several  sources,  that  it  will 
be  morally  and  physically  impossible  to  vote 
upon  the  aHairs  of  Trinity  in  the  manner  pro- 
vided in  the  bill,  by  making  provisions  that  the 
TTotes  shall  be  vested  in  a  certain  number  of 
Vestrymen  or  Wardens,  in  some  manner  to  be 
hereafter  determined  upon. 

Mr.  Upham :  Is  it  the  desire  of  the  Senator 
that  his  substitute  shall  be  printed  before  any 
action  is  taken  on  the  bill  now  before  the  Sen- 
ate ? 

Mr.  Brooks:  No.  I  ilo  not  wish  that  it  should 
occasion  any  delay  in  the  action  of  the  Senate, 
hope  oth<^r  bussiness  may  be  set  aside  until  this 
matter  is  disposed  of,  and  if  it  meets  the  views 
of  all  parties,  I,  for  one,  am  ready  to  discuss  it 
at  one  .'. 

The  Senate  then  went  into  committee  of  the 
whole  on  the  bill  reported  by  the  special  com- 
mittee, and  the  same  was  read  through. 

Mr.  Noxon  moved  to  strike  out  the  enacting 
clause  for  the  j)urpose  of  opening  the  debate. 
He  said : 

It  is  well  known,  Mr  Chairman,  that  at  the 
last  session  of  the  legislature,  a  committee  was 
appointed  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  lo  take  cer- 
tain testimony  in  matters  relaliug  to  Triiiity 
Church,  by  way  of  filling  up  a  gap  which  had 
been  left  by  that  Church,  unanswered,  in  cer- 
tain resolutions  which  were  proposed  by  the 
Senate  of  1855,  calling  upon  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  to  make  answers  to  certain  questions 
then  propounded.  The  resolution  to  which  I  al- 
lude will  be  found  iu  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  January  29,  1857. 

The  Committee  proceeded  to  the  City  of  New 
York  some  months  prior  to  tlie  meeting  of  the 
Legislature.  It  notified  the  proper  parties  con- 
nected wite  the  Clmrch,  that  the  Committee  was 
in  session.  The  notice  was  served  on  the  otlicera 
of  the  Corporation.  As  one  of  the  Committee 
having  that  matter  in  charge,  I  had  liojied  tli:it 
the  Corporation  of  Triuity  Church  would  see 
fit  to  come  before  the  Committee  aud  to  make 
such  statements  of  facts  :is  would  enable  us  to 
properly  discharge  our  duty.  i!ut  vs-e  were  dis- 
appointed, not  only  in  hearing  from  Triaity 
Church  in  person,  but  also  in  finding  that  some 
member  of  the  Vestry  refused  to  testify  before 
the  Committee  on  the  grounds,  as  stated  by 
by  him,  that  there  was  a  controversy  going  on 
between  the  Corporation  and  the  Committee,  and 
that  it  was  not  proper  for  him  to  answer  ques- 
tions put  to  him  by  the  latt.T.  Your  Commit- 
«    tee,  having  no  power  in  the  matter,  could  not 


compel  this  man  to  testify;  but  Ix)nght  to  say  in 
justice  to  him  and  to  Trinity,  that  he  has  since 
consented  to  come  before  the  Committee  and 
give  his  testimony. 

It  is  proper  here  to  state,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
1  look  upon  all  matters  regarding  the  law  now 
proposed  to  be  repealed,  as  not  affected  by  the 
grest  mass  of  testimony  presented  to  the  Senate ; 
but  as  involving  more  properly  a  simple  question 
of  law.  I  do  not  look  upon  that  testimony  in  any 
paarticular,  as  bearing  on  the  real  question  now 
before  this  committee.  It  has  regard  only  to 
the  manner  of  executing  certain  powers  confer- 
red on  the  corporations  by  grants,  and  by  laws 
of  the  State  of  Nhw  York  ;  but  I  cannot  think 
that  it  has  much  to  do  with  the  principles  in- 
volved in  the  |iresent  discussion.  I  ought  at 
least  to  state  how  the  committee  viewed  it ;  and 
what  the  law — the  original  law — as  we  have 
looked  upon  it,  had  in  contemplation  when  it 
vested  certain  property  in  Trinity  Church  ;  and 
I  shall  refer  to  the  report  by  way  of  givinga  his- 
tory of  a  matter  which  is  now  one  of  the  most 
exciting  questions  that  has  for  some  time  agita- 
ted the  city  of  New  York,  or,  indeed,  the  coun- 
try at  large. 

In  the  original  charter  of  1697,  all  the  right 
Trinity  church  had  to  the  chapsl  and  grounds 
adjoining,  will  be  found  set  forth  in  the  extract 
from  that  charter,  on  page  3  of  the  special  com- 
mittee's report.  It  is  declared  therein — "  That 
the  aforesaid  church,  [meaning  the  church  erect- 
ed previous  to  1697,  on  the  site  upon  which 
Trinity  church  is  erected]  erected  and  built  as 
aforesaid,  and  situate  in  or  near  the  street  called 
the  Broadway,  within  our  said  city  of  New  York, 
and  the  ground  thereunto  adjoining,  inclosed  and 
used  for  a  cemetery  or  church-yard,  shall  be  the 
parish  church  and  church-yard  of  the  parish  of 
Trinity  church,  within  our  said  city  of  Now 
York  ;  and  the  same  is  hereby  declared  to  be 
forever  separated  and  dedicated  to  the  service  of 
(rod,  and  to  be  applied  therein" — and  I  call  now 
the  especial  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  precise 
language  employed — "  to  the  use  and  behalf  of 
(he  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting  and 
to  inhabit  within  our  said  city  of  New  York,  in 
communion  of  our  said  Protestant  Church  of 
England,  as  now  t.stablished  by  our  laws,  and  to* 
no  other  use  use  or  ])urpose  whatsoever." 

And  it  is  further  declared  in  the  same  charter 
that  the  royal  will  and  pleasure  is  to  make  and 
cri-ate,  aud  th«  Rectcr  of  said  parish,  "  together 
with  all  the  inliabitauts  from  time  to  time  inhab- 
iting aud  to  inhabit  in  our  said  city  of  New  York, 
and  in  commuuinn  of  our  aforesaid  Protestant 
Church  of  England,  as  now  established  liy  our 
laws,  are  created  a  body  corporate,  &c,"  and  then 
followed  the  name  of  the  eorp  >ration  created 
which  is  in  these  words:  'We  have  ordained, con 
stituted,  aud  declared  by  these  presents,  for  us 
our  heirs  and  successors,  do  ordain,  constitute 
and  declare,  tliat  he  (Lord  Bishop  of  London 
and  his  successors,  and  all  such  ofoarlovin 
aubjects  as  now  are  or  hereafter  shall  be  admitt 
ed  into  the  communion  of  the  aforesaid  Protestan 
Churjh  of  England,  as  now  estiblished  by  ou 


3 


laws,  sliall  be  from  time  to  time,  and  forever 
hereafter,  a  body  corporate  and  politique,  in 
fa  ;t  and  nam»,  by  tlie  name  of  tbe  Rector  and 
iniiabitants  of  our  said  city  of  New  York,  in 
communiou  of  oar  Protestant  Church,  of  Eng- 
land, as  now  established  by  our  laws." 

So  it  will  be  perceived,  wheu  we  start  off  with 
the  original  charter,that  it  grunts  the  chapel  and 
grounds  for  the  use  and  behalf  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  city  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  churh 
ot  England,  as  th'm  established  by  law.  It  is 
farther  declared  in  the  same  charter,  that  to 
manage  the  affairs  and  corporation  there  shall  be 
annually  elected  two  Church  Wardens  and 
twenty  Vestrymen,  "by  the  mnjorily  of  votes  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  saul  parish  in  communion  as 
aforesaid," — that  is  with  the  Protestant  Church 
of  England  as  then  established  by  law. 

These  are  all  the  provisions  to  which  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  call  the  att-:ntion  of  the  Committee, 
in  order  to  show  the  nature  of  the  original 
grant,  and  the  parsons  who  were  entitled  to 
vote  under  it. 

When  we  come  to  the  next  legislation  in 
regard  to  the  corporation,  we  find  tliat  in  1704 
the  colonial  legislature  confirmed  the  grant  of 
1097,  by  an  act  granting  sundry  privileges  and 
powers  to  the  Re.jtor  and  inhabitants  of  th«  city 
of  New  York,  of  the  communion  of  the  Church 
of  England,  as  by  law  established.  In  the  first 
section  of  the  act,  it  is  declared  that  "the  Rae- 
tor,  &o.,"  "and  their  saccessors,"  be  able  to  sue, 
&c.,  (here  enun^erating  the  powers  of  the  corpo- 
ration), and  by  section  6  of  said  act,  it  is  enact- 
ed "that  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  for  the  in- 
Uabitauts  aforesaid  to  assemble  and  meet  togeth- 
er on  Tuesday,  in  Exster  week,  annually,  at  the 
said  church,  to  choose  two  church  wardens  and 
twenty  vestrymen,  communicants  of  the  said 
-  church,  to  serve  and  officiate  for  the  next  ensu- 
.j  ing  year,  by  the  majority  of  the  voice  of  the  said 
f  communicants  .so  met,  and  not  otherwise." 

In  I7O3,  the  grant  of  Queen  Ann  is  given  to 
,  Ihis  corparation,  thus  consisting  of  the  Rector 
ind  inhabitants  of  the  church  of  England,  by 
which  the  former  grant  is  ratified  and  perpetu- 
■,  ited.  After  the  original  grant,  the  act  s»ys — 
"i  Mr.  Wadsworth — From  what  is  the  Senator 
.,  -eading  ? 

Mr.  Noxon — From  Queen  Anne's  grant,  by 
,.  which  the  original  grant  is  confirmed.    It  says  : 
-;    'Know  ye  by  our  special  grace,"  &c.  "We 
I,  iiave  given,  granted,  ratified  and  confirmed,  in 
-J  ind  by  these  presents,  for  ourselve;i,  heirs  and 
•.  successors,  we  do  giye,  grant,  ratify  aud  confirm, 
anto  the  said  rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city 
u  if  New  York,  in  communion  of  the  church  of 
,,  England,  as  by  law  established,  and  their  suc- 
jessors,  all  and  singular,  the  said  farm,"  &o. , 
■'to  have  and  to  hold  said  farm,  the  several 
Leases,  &c.,  unto  the  said  Rector  and  inhabitants 
)t  the  city  of  New  York,  in  communion  with 
•he  church  of  England,  as  by  law  established, 
ind  their  successors  forever." 

No  furttier  legislation  was  had  in  regard  to 
■he  corporation  until  after  the  revnlntion.  In 
1784  an  act  was  passed  making  such  alterations 
a  the  charter  of  the  corporation  of-  Trinity 


Church  as  to  render  it  more  conformable  to  the 
constitution  of  the  state.  In  the  third  section 
of  that  act  tt  is  enacted  a?  follows  : 

III.  Bs  it  further  enaeted  by  the  authority  afore- 
said, That  all  parsons  professing  themselves 
members  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  who  shall 
either  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in 
the  said  church,  and  shall  regularly  pay  to  the 
support  of  the  said  chur;h,  and  such  others  as 
shall  in  the  said  church  partake  of  the  holy 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  at  least  once 
in  every  year,  being  inhabitants  of  the  city  and 
county  of  New  York,  shall  be  entitled  to  ail  the 
rights,  privileges,  benefits  and  emoluments, 
which  in  and  by  the  said  charter  and  law  first 
above  mentioned,  are  designed  to  be  secured  to 
the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York  in  com- 
munion of  the  Church  of  England. 

And  preceding  ttiis  third  section  is  a  preamble 
in  the  following  language  :  And  whereas  doubts 
have  arisen  on  these  parts  of  the  said  charter 
and  law  first  meutionei,  which  speaks  of  inhabi- 
tants in  communion  of  the  said  church  of  Eng- 
land ;  for  removal,  &c. 

These  doubts  here  alluded  to,  are  as  to  that 
part  of  the  charter  which  speaks  of  the  people 
"in  communion  of  tlie  church  of  England,"  to 
whom  were  granted  the  rights  aud  pri^'ileges  of 
the  original  charter.  It  will  be  perceived  that 
now,  for  the  first  time,  we  hear  the  Protestant 
Epi.^copal  church  mentioned  instead  of  the 
church  of  England  ;  a  change  made  necessary  by 
the  revolution.  So  that  under  this  act,  tbe  only 
change  made,  is  Van  it  gives  the  same  powers 
to  persons  in  communion  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church,  which  were  formerly  confer- 
red on  those  in  communion  of  the  church  of 
England.  It  adds  also  one  other  class  to  those 
entitled  to  vote — those  who  are  pew  holders  in 
the  church  and  pay  regularly  towards  its  sup- 
port. 

lu  1788 — four  years  afterwards — an  act  was 
pissed  which  authorized  the  Corporation  to 
take  and  use  the  name  of  "The  Rector  and  In- 
h  vbitants  ol  the  City  of  New  York,  in  communion 
of  tlie  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State 
of  New  York,"  and  confirmed  all  grants,  deeds, 
and  conveyances  made  to  them  uuder  their  for- 
mer name.  No  other  alteration  was  made  in  the 
act  of  178S  at  all  material  to  this  matter. 

We  have  no  further  legislation  in  respect  to 
the  Corporation,  from  1788  until  the  act  of 
1814  ;  aud  I  beg  to  call  the  particular  attention 
of  the  Senate  to  the  words  of  certain  sections  of 
that  act.  By  the  first  section,  the  title  of  the 
corporation  is  altered ;  and  it  is  provided  that 
"from  and  after  the  pa'^sage  of  this  aot,  the  said 
corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  instead  of  their 
present  name,  shall  take  and  use  the  name  of 
'The  Rector,  Church  Wardens,  and  Ve.strymen 
of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  City  of  New  York.'" 

By  section  two  of  the  same  act,  it  is  provided 
"  that  all  male  persons  of  full  age,  who,  for  the 
space  of  one  year  preceding  any  election,  shall 
have  been  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trin- 
ity church  aforesaid,  or  any  of  the  chapels  be- 
longing to  the  same,  and  forming  part  of  the 
same  religious  corporation,  and  who  shall  hold, 


4 


occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in  Trinity  church, 
or  in  any  of  the  said  chapRls,  or  have  partaken 
of  the  holy  communion  therein  within  the  said 
year,  and  no  other  persons,  shall  be  entitled  to 
vote  at  the  annual  elections  for  the  church- war- 
dens and  vestrymen  of  the  said  corporation." 

Now,  it  will  bo  perceived  by  the  Committee, 
that  if  under  the  original  grant  of  1697,  and  un- 
der the  Colonial  act  of  1704,  and  the  act  of  the 
legislature  of  the  State  in  1784,  the  inhabitants 
of  the  city  of  New  York,  in  communion  of  the 
Church  of  England,  or  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  of  the  United  States,  had  a  right  to 
vote  on  matters  relating  to  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  Church ;  then  the  act  of  1814  struck 
down  that  right  and  took  it  away  from  them. — 
Under  the  act  of  1814  it  will  be  seen  that  all 
grants  given  to  communicants  in  other  P.  E. 
Churches  not  immediately  attached  to  Trinity, 
were  annihilated  ;  that  if  there  is  any  such  thing 
as  a  vested  right  on  the  part  of  the  inhabitants 
of  New  York  in  communion  of  the  P.  E.  Church, 
the  object  and  effect  of  section  2  of  the  act  of 
1814  was  to  strike  down  their  privileges,  given 
under  the  Colonial  acts  and  the  acts  of  the  legis- 
lature of  the  State. 

The  special  committee,  believing  that  the  ori- 
ginal intent  of  all  the  acts  up  to  1814  was  to  vest 
in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  people  of  N.  Y.  the 
right  to  vote  for  vestrymen  in  Trinity  Church, 
have  introduced  a  bill  to  restore  to  them  those 
rights.  By  section  two  of  the  act  now  under 
consideration,  we  do  restore  to  th^m  those  rights 
while  we  take  away  not  one  privilege  ever  grant- 
ed to  the  church.  We  are  but  asking  those 
members  who  now  control  the  atfairs  of  the 
corporation,  to  allow  those  who  were  corpora- 
tors with  them  up  to  1814,  to  share  those  privi- 
leges they  both  then  enjoyed  in  common. 

It  may  be  urged  that  prior  to  the  act  of  1814, 
the  parlies  for  whose  rights  we  now  contend, did 
not  discharge  those  duties  or  avail  themselves 
of  those  privileges.  But  this  is  not  a  matter  for 
us  to  consider.  The  only  question  which  should 
guide  us  here,  is  whether  they  really  possessed 
the  rights  stripped  from  them  in  1814.  As  a 
purely  legal  question,  I  put  it  to  the  Senate  to 
say  whether  that  act  of  1814  was  not  distinctly 
opposed  to  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  original 
grants. 

I  am  not  here  at  this  time,  Mr.  Chairman,  to 
charge  Trinity  Church  with  having  come  to  this 
Capitol  to  get  that  act  through  the  legislature 
from  grasping  and  improper  motives.  She  may 
have  had  the  purest  intentions  for  aught  I 
care  at  the  present  time,  in  securing  that  law  ; 
but  the  question  is,  what  are  we  to  say  and  to 
do  now  that  the  subject  is  presented  to  us. 

The  Senate  knows,  and  I  know  the  difficulties 
this  legislature  has  experienced  in  iavestigating 
this  matter.  The  first  thing  we  did,  when  the 
abuses  of  the  corporation  were  brought  to  our 
notice,  was  to  simply  press  her  with  resolutions 
designed  to  elicit  the  facts  in  the  case.  But 
they  were  useless,  for  she  defied  us.  Trinity 
Church  haughtily  defied  the  State  of  New  York. 
She  was  a  corporation,  with  grants  with  which 


we  could  not  interfere.  She  had  vested  rights 
which  was  out  of  our  power  to  touch.  No  legis- 
lature, she  said,  could  call  li^^r  to  account  for  the 
maunnr  in  which  she  discharged  the  duties  con- 
ferred upon  her  in  her  grants  and  laws.  Sir,  I 
believe  that  these  corporations  are  only  the  cre- 
ations of  law,  and  that  they  are  all  bound  to  re- 
port to  us  their  acts  and  to  abide  by  our  deci- 
sions. 

But  Trinity  Church  does  not  stop  here.  Not 
only  does  she  deny  the  right  of  the  Legislature 
to  inlerfere  in  any  manner  with  her  affiiirs  ;  but 
when  deeming  it  prudent  to  report,  how  does 
she  do  so  ?  She  reports  by  spreading  out  on 
your  tables  no  names  of  her  corporators,  and 
when  taxed  with  the  omission,  .says  she  did  not 
suppose  you  needed  them.  Why,  did  not  the 
Senate  understand  what  they  wanted  ?  Is  Trin- 
ity Church  to  come  here  and  say  to  the  Senate 
that  she  did  not  understand  herself  nor  know 
what  she  required  ?  Sir,  I  accord  more  justice 
and  more  intelligence  to  the  Senate  than  to  sup- 
pose they  adopted  resolutions  calling  for  certain 
information  without  understanding  what  they 
were  about.  But  although  Trinity  Church 
would  not  then  allow  us  to  have  the  names  of 
her  corporators,  she  finally  does  so.  She  yields 
inch  by  inch — protesting  at  every  step — until 
finally  what  do  we  find  her  doing  ?  Why  she 
comes  to  us  at  last,  not  insolent  and  protesting, 
but  begging — humbly  begging — and  petitioning 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York  to  let 
her  alone,  and  not  to  take  away  her  powers.  I 
ask  Senators  to  look  at  the  flood  of  remonstran- 
ces and  petitions  from  all  parts  of  the  State  that 
have  been  poured  into  this  Chamber.  They 
come  from  the  same  power  that  would  not  only 
control  the  Legislature,  but  is  controlling  with 
iron  and  despotic  will,  all  the  churches  in  the 
State  of  New  York  belonging  to  the  same  denom- 
ination. 

And  yet  this  is  called  a  Religious  Corporation. 
God  save  the  word !  A  religious  corporation  ? 
why  it  has  not  the  least  scintilla  of  spiritual 
feeling.  It  grovels  among  the  things  of  this 
earth — among  matters  with  which  a  purely  re- 
ligious corporation  could  have  no  connection  or 
sympathy.  Its  affairs  are  managed  and  its  du- 
ties performed  by  standing  committees,  responsi- 
ble to  no  one. 

There  has  been  a  good  deal  of  feeling  mani- 
fested in  this  matter  of  Trinity  Church,  but  it 
has  been  occasioned  by  persons  Interested  in 
getting  up  such  feeling.  In  order  to  carry  out 
their  plans,  it  seems  the  Senate  is  first  to  be  at- 
tacked, and  thf-n  the  Special  Committee.  What 
are  the  charges  made  against  the  Committee  ? 
We  are  accused  of  having  spread  false  tilings  be- 
fore the  public.  Well,  it  is  for  the  Senate  to  saj 
whether  the  facts  we  set  forth  are  not  fully  jus 
tified  by  the  evidence. 

Mr.  Spencer — Will  the  Senator  give  way  ?  I 
is  now  past  the  usual  hour  for  adjournment 
and  I  desire  to  move  that  the  committee  rise  an 
report  progress. 

Mr.  Noxon  yielded  the  floor  for  the  motioi 
and  the  committee  rose  and  Senate  adjourned. 


5 


IN  SENATE  niaraday,  1  P.  M. 

The  Senate  resimed  the  consideration  of  the 
Trinity  Church  Bill,  Mr.  Darling  in  the  Chair. 
Mr.  NiiX'^n  said:  — 

Mr.  Chairman  :  In  addressing  the  Committee 
npon  this  bill,  I  desire  to  briefly  recapitalate  the 
points  1  have  tak*n  iu  support  of  the  Bill,  in 
order  that  the  Committee  may  bear  in  view  and 
have  iu  their  minds  the  true  question  before 
the  Committee.    The  statement  I  first  made  was 
that  the  title  of  the  corporation,  created  by  the 
grant  from  the  English  Crown  in  1607,  was, 
"The  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  our  said  City  of 
New  York,  in  Communion  of  oar  Protestant 
Choroh  of  Eag'aad,  as  now  established  by  oar 
laTS.'  2i— That  under  that  graat,th9  Church  and 
Church  yard  were  "forever  separated  and  d^jdi- 
cated  to  the  service  of  God,  and  to  be  applied 
therein,  to  the  use  and  behalf  of  the  inhabitants 
from  time  to  time  inhabiting,  and  to  inhabit 
within  oar  said  City  of  New  York,  in  commu- 
nion of  our  said  Protestant  Church  of  England, 
as  now  established  by  onr  laws,  and  to  no  other 
use  or  purpose  whatsover."    Third — That  for 
managing  the  business  of  the  corporation,  there 
were  annually  elected  two  Church  Wardens  and 
twenty  Vestrymen,  "by  the  majority  of  votes  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  said  Parish,  in  commu- 
nion as  aforesaid."    Fourth — That  in  1704  this 
grant  was  confirmed  by  the  Colonial  Act  which 
conferred  "sundry  privileges  and  powers  on  the 
Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  Yor'^, 
of  the  communion  of  the  Church  of  England, 
as  by  law  established. "    Fifth — That  the  estate 
known  as  the  Queen's  Farm,  was  granted  in 
1705  by  Queen  Anne,  unto,  "The  said  Rector 
and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  in 
communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by 
law  established,  and  their  successors  all  and 
Bingnlar."    Sixth — That  in   1734   an  act  was 
passed  to  make  the  charter  of  the  corporation 
of  Trinity  more  conformable  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  Stite  ;  and  that  section  3  of  that  act, 
to  clear  up  doubts  which  had  arisen  on  those 
points  of  the  original  charter  which  spoke  of 
inhabitants  in  communion  of  the  Church  of 
England,  declared  that  members  of  the  Episco- 
pal Church,  who  were  communicants  or  held 
pews  in  the  Church  and  paid  regularly  towards 
its  support,  should  have  the  right  to  vote.  Sev- 
enth— That  in  173S  the  title  of  the  Corporation 
was  changed  to  -'The  Rector  and  Inhabitants 
of  the  City  of  New  York,  in  communion  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of 
New  York."    Eighth— That  in  1814,  all  the  cor- 
porators who  were  not  communicants  of  Trinity 
or  her  parishes,  were  cut  off  from  the  rights  and 
privileges  enjoyed  by  them,  under  the  original 
charter  and  subsequent  acts. 
;  Perhaps  I  ought  to  say,  before  leaving  this 
branch  of  the  case,  which  treat*  of  the  rights  of 
Trinity  Church  as  now  claimed,  and  under  the 
acts  and  grants  of  the  Crown  and  of  the  Colonial 
and  our  own  State  legislatures  ;  perhaps  I  ongiit 
to  say  something  with  rejard  to  the  manner  in 
^hich  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814  \\  as  pro- 


cured, and  what  led  to  its  adoption.  There  can 
be  no  ques'ion  that  so  fara-i  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal people  of  the  city  of  New  York  were  con- 
cerned,  there  were  a  great  number  who  had 
rights  secured  to  them  under  the  original  char- 
ter, who  were  opposed  to  the  act.  I  ought  to 
say  that  the  act  of  1814  never  really  received  the 
sanction  of  the  Council  of  Revision.  There  was 
a  division  in  the  Council  on  that  question  ;  and 
it  was  necessary  in  order  that  the  act  of  1814 
might  become  a  law,  that  it  should  pass  the 
Council  of  Revision.  The  Council  at  that  time 
consisted  of  D.  D.  Thompkins,  Gov.,  Chancellors 
Lansing  and  Kent,  William  W.  Van  Ness,  Am- 
brose Spencer  ard  Robert  Yates.  Perhaps  not 
from  that  time  to  the  pres  'nt,  has  there  been  a 
more  distingui-hed  and  abler  set  of  jurists  as- 
sembled tog-ether,  than  the  distinguished  men 
who  composed  that  Council  of  Revision.  When 
the  question  came  up,  there  was  but  one  of  the 
Council  of  Revision,  who  finally  voted  upon  it, 
who  favored  the  act  of  1814.  Chaneellor  Lin- 
sin"  himself  long  entertained  obje'-tions  to  the 
bilf;  and  unless  he  had  passed  over  and  voted 
on  the  other  sid^,  it  never  would  have  become  a 
law.  Kent,  Lansing,  Spencer,  Yates— tvery  one 
of  those  distinguished  men,  then  the  brightest 
luminaries  of  the  State— every  one  of  them  orig- 
inally opposed  the  act  of  1S14.  I  may  add  that 
from  the  testimony  it  appears  that  one  of  those 
men— Chancellor  Kent— known  and  distinguish- 
ed not  here  alone,  but  throughout  the  world, 
after  voting  for  the  bill,  pronounced  it  as  his 
opinion  that  the  law  was  unoonstitationaL  1 
speak  of  Chancellor  James  Kent. 

Now  it  is  clear  that  as  the  matter  yfood,  the 
act  of  1814  is  not,  as  if  contended,  conceded 
on  all  hands  to  be  ri^ht.  There  were  rights  to 
be  affected  by  that  act ;  but  the  fact  is,  those  in- 
terested in  the  original  grants,  placed  great  reli- 
ance, not  only  in  the  Judge  of  the  Council  of 
Rsvision,  but  in  Judge  Troup,  the  leading  Ves- 
tryman of  the  chnrch,  who  promised  that  the 
government  and  management  of  the  affairs  of 
the  church,  under  the  law  of  1814,  should  be 
the  same  as  it  had  been  prior  to  its  passage. 
They  then  fell  iu  with  his  views,  and  allowed 
the  law  to  pass.  I  do  not  believe  there  can  be 
any  question  but  that  the  mind  of  Chancellor 
Lansing  was  influencod  by  Judge  Troup,  as  to 
the  rights  affected  by  the  bill  ol  1814,  and  the 
management  proposed  after  it  should  become 
a  law. 

I  have  now  said  as  much  as  is  necessary  re- 
specting the  questions  of  law.  I  will  now  pro- 
ceed to  examine  the  evidence  given  before  your 
Committee. 

'It  will  be  recoUect-^d  that  bythe  resolution  which 
passed  the  Senate  in  1853,  Trinity  church  was 
called  on  to  set  forth  the  value  of  her  real  estate. 
Well,  it  is  well  know  how  Trinity  church  re- 
po  ted.  Whether  the  corporation  in  their  answer 
to  the  resolution  of  the  Senate  were  actuated  by 
hi-'h  and  noble  principles  it  is  not  for  me  to  say; 
but  I  must  levert  to  it  in  order  that  the  Senate 
may  understand  what  the  value  is. 


6 


The  reply  of  the  Church  was  grounded  upon 

the  valuation  of  the  assessors  and  not  upon  tho 
value  she  herself  puts  upon  the  property.  And 
what  is  that  valuation  ?  about  $1,500,000.— 
Your  committee  in  prosecuting  the  labors  you 
had  assigned  to  them,  and'in  taking  testimony 
for  that  purpose,  nroceeded  dilforently.  They 
called  witnesses  who  knew  the  property,  to  prove 
the  value  of  the  real  estate  owned  by  the  cor- 
poration, and  the  proof  thus  elicited  is  submit- 
ted to  the  Senate.  I  would  refer  Senators  to  the 
report  to  show  them  that  the  actual  value  of  the 
property  upon  which  this  valuation  of  a  mil- 
lion and  a  half  was  put,  exclusive  of  buildings, 
amounts  to  nearly  six  millions  of  dollars. 

Mr.  Wads  worth —Will  the  Senator  tell  us 
what  incumbrances  there  are  upon  that  proper- 
ty? 

Mr.  Noxou — It  has  no  incumbrances  that 
are  worth  speaking  of.  The  mortgages  and  se- 
curities the  church  possesses  outside  this  real 
estate,  leaves  her  in  the  juflgment  of  your  com- 
mittee with  property  in  her  hands  worth  at  least 
$10,000,000  I  ought,  injustice  to  the  apprais- 
ers to  say,  that  one  of  them,  a  responsible  person 
stated  he  would  take  every  dollar  of  the  proper 
ty  at  its  valuation — si.x  or  seven  millions — and 
pay  cash  for  it. 

I  now  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee to  the  valuation  of  some  portions  of  the 
property  by  the  corporation  and  by  the  special 
committee  ;  and  I  do  this  in  order  that  the  com- 
mittee may  understand  whether  or  not  there  was 
a  design  on  the  part  of  the  corporation  of  Trin- 
ity church  to  make  any  concealment  in  the  mat- 
ter of  their  property,  without  myself  charging 
such  design  directly  upon  them.  And  first,!  refer 
Senators  to  p  •  ge  8  of  the  report  of  the  select  ooin- 
mittee  made  in  18.5.5  ;  in  whicli  they  will  find 
that  the  corporation  estimates  the  value  of  No.  25 1 
Broadway,  at  $12,081.56.  It  is  estimated  by  one 
appraiser  at  $100,000,  and  by  another  atll5,000. 
I  also  lefer  you  to  the  valuation  by  the  corpora- 
tion, on  page  9  of  the  lirst  report,  of  the  lots 
Nos.  136,  138,  140,  and  142  Chambers  street— 
which  I  believe  is  the  depot  of  the  Hudson  River 
railroad— which  valuation  is  $28,827.40.  And 
what  is  the  proof  on  this  point?  Why,  the 
proof  is,  that  when  the  committee  come  to  value 
this  property,  thpy  find  the  fact  to  be  that  Trinity 
church  leases  the  same  lots  at  a  ground  rent  of 
$5,OiiO.  This  she  herself  fixes  to  be  at  the  rate 
of  5  per  cent,  on  the  valuii ;  thus  making  the 
valuation  of  the  property  by  her  own  estimate, 
one  hundred  thousand  do'lars. 

I  ought  to  say  here  that  this  negotiation,  by 
■which  Trinity  church  fixed  the  valuation  of 
the  Chambeis  street  property  at  $100,000,  was 
made  about  two  months  before  tho  report  which 
they  submitted  to  the  St'nate. 

I  call  the  attention  also  to  the  report  where 
this  cnrporatiou  values  the  lot  275  Hreen^rieh  St. 
at  $6,840.60,  a  lot  which  by  actual  sale  a  few 
days  previous  to  the  report,  was  i-old  for  tho 
sum  of  S20,000. 

Again,  no  mention  whatever  is  made  by  Trin- 
ity Church  of  the  St.  John's  square  property. — 


It  was  a  matter  of  too  little  consequence  to  re- 
port the  valu.ation  which  the  church  put  upon 
the  squarfe  ;  and  yet  it  is  estimated  by  Trinity 
herst'lf,  in  a  ni^gotiation  for  its  sale,  at  tho  mod- 
est sum  of  four  hundred  tkomand  dollars! 

But  these  discrepancies  in  the  valuation!  are 
all  explained  and  excused  by  Trinity  in  a  few 
words,  when  she  says  "why,  in  our  report  we 
took  the  assessors'  valuation." 

I  would  next  call  the  atiention  of  the  com- 
mittee to  another  branch  of  the  case — that  relat- 
ing to  the  corporators.  We  have  now  some  in- 
formation respecting  them.  Although  in  reply 
to  the  original  resolutions  of  the  Senate,we  could 
only  get  the  number  of  the  corporators,  and  not 
the  names;  the  committee,  in  taking  testimony, 
did  thrnugh  the  reports  sent  to  them  on  behalf 
of  Trinity  Church,  find  what  were  the  names  of 
communicants  in  the  church,  and  of  the  pew 
holders,  and  the  total  number  entitled  to  vote 
as  corporators.  And  I  may  hare  sav  that  we 
have  had  placed  upon  tho  files  of  the  Senate, 
since  our  last  report,  memorials  impugning  in  a 
measure  the  action  of  the  committee  in  r«gard 
to  the  report  she  made  relative  to  the  list  of  cor- 
porators. These  memorials  set  forth  the  charge 
that  the  committee  have  drawn  conclusions  not 
warranted  by  the  testimony.  A  protest  was 
then  placed  upon  our  files  against  tlie  commit- 
tee, a'^serting  that  they  have  made  charges 
against  the  corporation  not  borne  out  by  the 
evidence.  Now,  what  was  the  statement  of  the 
committue  on  this  point?  Simply  that  it  had 
been  a  most  difficult  matter  for  several  years, 
even  to  get  a  sight  at  the  list  of  corporators.  I 
beg  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
some  points  in  the  reported  evidence ;  and  I 
will  ask  them,  after  looking  at  the  testimony,  to 
say  whether  we  were  right  in  that  assertion  ;  or 
whe'her  Trinity  Church  is  right  in  charging  that 
we  are  dragging  her  before  the  Senate  to  place 
her  in  a  false  position. 

I  say  that  for  eighteen  years — eighteen  long 
years — one  of  her  own  clergymen,  who  minis- 
tered at  her  ovvn  altar,  was  not  allowed  to  look 
into  the  list  of  Corporators  of  that  Church.  I 
refer  the  Senate  to  page  83  of  the  first  report. 
Dr.  Higbee  swears  that  he  has  been  an  Assistant 
Minister  in  Trinity  Church  for  18  years  and  says: 
"  I  have  never  been  able  to  see  a  list  of  the  cor- 
porators of  Trinity  Church.  Dr.  Wainwright 
and  myself  have  made  several  efforts  to  obtain 
such  a  list  unsuccessfnlly.  Dr.  Wainwright 
after  being  made  bishop,  told  me  he  did  receive 
such  a  list."  In  examining  the  Comptroller  of 
the  Church,  in  New  York  city,  some  questions 
came  up,  .^luggested  by  the  replies  of  the  Comp- 
troller, as  to  tho  list  of  corporators.  The  ques- 
tion was  put  to  him,  "  Have  you  a  list  of  the  vo- 
ters in  your  possession  ?"  To  which  he  answer- 
ed, "  One  of  the  lists  was  lost  and  afterwards 
found,  and  the  number  but  not  the  names  was 
added  to  our  report.  1  presume  their  names  are 
in  the  office;  if  the  committee  of  the  vestry  au- 
thorize mo  to  furnish  such  list  I  will  do  so." 

Why,  is  it  not  strange  that  the  Comptroller  of 
such  a  corporation  as  this,  testifying  before  a 


7 


committee  of  the  Senate,  sTionld  affect  so  little 
knowledge  of  the  affairs  of  his  own  chnrch  ?  Is 
it  not  strange  that  when  questioned  as  to  the  list 
of  corporators,  he  should  fall  back  tipon  the 
" Committee  of  the  Vestry,"  and  say— "if  the 
Committee  of  the  Vestry  authorize  me  to  furnish 
anch  a  list,  I  «all  do  so." 

At  page  64,  in  assigning  a  reason  why  the 
names  of  the  corporators  were  not  given  in  the 
report,  the  Comptroller  in  a  communication  ad- 
dressed to  the  committee  states  it  to  be — "  be- 
cause the  Vestry  were  not  aware  that  the  liberty 
to  inspect  a  list  of  such  names  had  ever  been  re- 
fused to  any  corporator."  The  Senators  will 
pay  particular  attention  to  these  words.  I  now 
desire  to  call  the  attentton  of  the  committee  to 
the  te.stimony  of  the  Rector  on  page  5.j,  of  the 
second  report.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
language  used  by  the  Comptroller  is  that  he  was 
not  aware  that  the  liberty  of  inspecting-  the 
names  had  ever  been  refused  to  any  of  the  cor- 
porators. Was  he  not  aware  that  Bishop  Wain- 
wright  had  tried  for  years  to  get  a  list  of  the  cor- 
porators, in  vain  1  Was  he  not  aware  that  the 
■venerable  Rector  himself  had  refused  to  show 
Bishop  Wainwright  such  list?  I  will  now  pro- 
ceed to  read  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Berriau,  as  to 
the  difficulty  of  obtaining  a  sight  of  the  names 
of  the  corporators : — 

Q.  You  speak  of  a  resolution  having  passed 
the  vestry,  in  relation  to  allowing  Bishop  Wain- 
right  to  take  a  copy  of  a  list  of  corporators. — 
What  called  for  this  action  on  the  part  of  the 
vestry  ?  A.  The  reason  was  the  bishop  wrote 
to  me  requesting  the  list  from  me.  I  replied 
that  I  had  no  power  myself  to  lend  the  book, 
though  he  had  the  ri£;htto  examine  it. 

Q.  When  was  it?  A.  I  think  it  was  in  1853, 
shortly  after  he  became  bishop. 

Q.  Had  he  applied  for  it  previously  without 
sue  e.ss  ?  A.  I  imderistood  that  he  applied  to  a 
clerk  in  the  vestry  office,  who  declined  as  I  did 
hetause  he  had  not  the  power  to  do  it. 

So  then  we  find  the  Bi-shop  asking  not  only 
the  Rector,  but  a  clerk  in  the  Vestry  office — try- 
ing in  some  manner  or  other  to  get  a  list  of  the 
corporators.    Bat  to  continue  : 

Q.  Did  he  ask  to  see  it  ?  A.  I  do  not  know; 
I  presume  he  did.  I  think  he  asked  me  to  see  it 

Q.  Did  you  show  it  to  him  ?    A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Why  not  ?  A.I  have  not  the  custody  of 
the  book.    It  is  not  in  my  office  or  custody. 

I  ask  the  committee  to  pay  particular  atten- 
tion to  the  language  here  used  by  the  Reverend 
Doctor,  and  to  see  whether  he  is  not  attempttng 
to  be  a  little  scholastic  over  this  mitter,  and  en- 
deavoring to  select  his  words  somewhat  careful- 
ly.   But  we  come  to  the  next  question  : 

Q.  Who  had  it?  A.  At  that  particulartime  it 
was  with  me. 

I  suppose  by  the  way  the  answer  is  given, 
the  Rev.  Doctor  sought  to  avail  himself  of  a 
special  plea,  as  some  lawyers  are  apt  to  do. — 
Although  the  book  was  with  him  in  fact,  yet  in 
the  eye  of  the  law  it  was  not  with  him.  I  now 
call  attention  to  the  lauguagj  used,  after  it  has 
been  admitted  that  the  book  was  in  his  hands  : 


Q.  Why  did  you  not  show  it  to  him  ?  A.I 
had  it  for  the  purpose  of  entering  the  names  of 
new  communicants,  and  the  changes  by  death 
and  removal. 

Q.  Did  that  prevent  your  showing  it  to  him  ? 
A.  I  had  no  control  in  the  matter.  I  looked 
upon  the  book  as  belonging  to  the  comptroller 
and  not  to  me. 

Well,  we  might  stop  right  here  and  ask,  who 
is  the  head  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church  ? 
The  comptroller,  who  is  simply  the  agent  of  the 
corporation  ;  or  the  Reverend  Rector  ?  Th^  Rec- 
tor seems  certainly  to  have  an  idea  that  he  has 
no  power  over  whatever  is  in  the  possession  of 
the  comptroller  or  any  other  officer.  The  evi- 
dence continues  : 

Q.  What  are  your  powers,  if  any,  over  the 
books  of  the  corporation  ?  A.  I  have  the  sole 
custody  of  the  parish  register,  containing  the 
records  of  baptisms,  marriages  and  burials  ;  and 
those  are  the  only  books  over  which  I  have  any 
control,  though  they  are  all  open  to  my  examin- 
ation. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  anything  in  the  act  of  in- 
corporation, or  rules  of  the  vestry,  to  prevent 
your  showing  the  book  to  any  person  who  ap- 
plies to  see  it  ?    A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Then,  I  again  ask,  why  you  did  not  show 
it  to  him  ?  A.  Because  I  thought  it  was  the 
proper  business  of  the  comptroller  to  let  him  see 
it 

Now,  then,  they  come  here  with  their  memo- 
rials crowding  the  files  of  the  Senate,  and  say 
that  your  Committee  have  eggregiously  erred  in 
saying  that  there  was  ever  any  difficulty  in  ob- 
taining a  list  of  the  corporators  of  Trinity  Chnrch! 

I  cite  now — without  particular  reference  to  it 
— the  testimony  of  John  De  Wolf,  for  many 
years  Vestryman  of  Trinity  Church,  and  who 
testifies  that  he  never  saw  the  list,  although  ten 
years  a  Vestryman.  And  yet  they  say  that  the 
reason  they  do  not  produce  the  names  of  their 
corporators  is  because  the^  supposed  that  any 
person  applying,  could  at  any  time  have  obtained 
the  list  I 

But  this  is  nat  all.  Perhaps  the  richest  thing 
of  the  whole,  is  the  statement  they  make  as  to 
the  ninety-tico  corporators  that  are  communicants 
of  Trinity  church,  and  all  her  parishes,  and  the 
two  hundred  pew  holders  ;  making  in  all  about 
three  hundred  to  administer  the  vast  funds  of 
the  corporation.  May  I  not  stop  here  and  ask, 
if  Trinity  church  has  in  one  hundred  and  sixty 
years  arlded  to  her  communicants  ninety-two  pei- 
sons  ;  if  she  has  done  thus  much  for  the  cause 
of  the  Episcopal  church,  what  may  we  expect 
that  she  will  come  to  in  one  hundred  and  sixty 
years  more  I 

But  when  she  makes  this  report  to  the  Senate 
and  spreads  out  before  us  her  ninety-two  corpo- 
rators, and  her  two  hundred  psw  holders,  even 
then  she  does  not  tell  the  truth ;  because  we 
have  evidence  to  show  that  not  over  150  of  the 
300  returned  here,  are  now  at  the  present  time. 
Communicants  or  pew  holders  in  tlie  Church.  I 
desire  to  present  to  the  Committee  a  bftter  evi- 
dence bearing  on  this  question,  and  shall  refer 


8 


them  to  tlie  report  for  lb.it  purpose.  The  lis 
containing  tlie  names  'will  be  foand  on  page  68, 
in  a  sohefiale  annexed  to  a  communication  from 
the  Comptroller  to  your  Committs,  hy  which  he 
makes  an  exhibit  of  tlie  corporators  who  are  not 
pew  holders.  The  number  is  92.  On  the  next 
page,  69,  the  wliole  number  of  corporators  as 
pew  holders,  is  made  221.  So  there  are  in  all, 
as  stated  in  these  schedules,  313  corporators  of 
Trinitj  Church.  Now  I  have  before  me  evidence 
to  show  that  from  the  92  names  sent  into  the 
Senate  of  the  State  of  New  Yorls  as  being  corpo- 
rators, communicants  of  that  Church,  the  fol- 
lowing should  be  deducted: 
Two  are  dead — 

Mr.  Brooks — Will  the  Senator  state  whether 
they  were  d.^ad  at  the  time  tlie  report  was  made  ? 

Mr.  Noxon — Well,  one  has  died  since  the  re- 
port— the  other  was  dead  at  the  time. 

Twenty-two  liave  no  directory  address. 

Seven  have  removed  from  the  city. 

Four  have  gone  over  to  other  churches. 

Nine  are  Rectors,  Clergymen,  &o.,  and  ten  are 
Vestrymen. 

This  makes  a  total  of  54. 

But  from  these  we  should  perhaps  deduct  the 
Vestrymen,  Rt^ctor,  Clergymen,  &c.,  nnmbering 
19.  Tliis  would  leave  of  the  corporators  of  Trin- 
ity Church  who  are  communicants,  57. 

This  is  all.  The  corporation  of  Trinity  Church 
presents  here  through  its  officers  a  li.st  of  the 
cor(  orators,  and  the  facts  show  that  its  92  dwin- 
dled down  to  57. 

But  lot  us  go  a  little  further.  We  will  not 
stop  at  the  corporators  who  are  communicants, 
we  go  on  to  the  corporators  who  are  pew  hold- 
ers. The  Senators  will  recollect  that  at  page  69, 
the  number  of  these  is  put  down  at  221.  Of 
these,  18  are  supposed  to  be  dead — at  least  they 
cannot  be  found,  nor  are  their  names  in  the  Di- 
rectory. Forty-two  have  removed  from  the 
city  of  New  York.  It  may,  indeed,  be  said, 
that  although  dead  or  removed,  these  pew-hol- 
ders had  the  right  to  transmit  tlieir  vote  as  cor- 
porators.   Forty-five  are  known  to  be  dead. 

Mr.  Brooks  :  Will  the  Senator  allow  me  to 
ask  him  if  at  the  time  the  report  was  made,  42 
of  the  pew-holders  were  absentees  from  the  city? 

Mr.  Noxon  : — Yes,  sir,  and  I  will  add  that  49 
had  removed  to  other  congregations  ;  15  were 
Vestrymen,  Sexton,  Clerk  &c.,  and  2  are  not 
Episcopalians.  Now  there  may  hi  some  power 
or  other  transmitted  by  the  dead  and  the  absent 
by  which  to  enable  tlie  corporation  to  swell  up 
the  number  to  221.  But  the  t'>tal  number  not  to 
be  found  among  tliese  pew  holders— including 
one  duplicate  name — is  1()8.  If  we  deduct  from 
this  the  15  Vestrymen  of  the  churoli.  Sexton, 
&c.,  it  will  leave  68  as  the  actual  numbsrof  pew 
holders.  So  that  <he  whole  number  of  corpora- 
tors in  Trinity  church  in  New  York  city,  is  ac- 
tually, 57  communicants,  and  68  pew  holders: 
making  a  total  125. 

Mr.  Noxon  at  this  point  gave  way  for  a  mo- 
tion to  rise  and  report  progress,  and  the  Senate 
adjourned. 


IN  SENATE  March  27, 12>i  M. 

The  Senate  iu  Committee  of  the  Whole,  re- 
sumed the  consideration  of  the  Trinity  Church 
bill. 

Mr.  Midden  said — Mr.  Cliairmin :  I  do  not 
see  why  the  Senate  should  tike  up  all  the 
tim9  she  h  is  at  this  stage  of  the  session  in  de- 
bating this  bill ;  and  for  the  sake  of  taking  up 
the  third  reading  of  bills,  I  move  that  the  Com.- 
mittee  now  rise  and  report  progress. 

The  motion  was  lost — ayes  7 — nays  12. 

Mr.  Noxon  then  concluded  his  remarks.  Ha 
said :  Mr.  Chairman ;  while  addressing  the 
Senate  yesterday,  and  at  the  time  the  Commit- 
tee reported  progress  on  this  bill,  I  was  making 
some  remarks  in  regard  to  the  corporators,  and  I 
was  showing  that  in  the  report  made  by  Trinity 
Church  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  the  number  of  corporators  as  communion- 
ists,  was  set  down  at  92,  and  the  number  as 
pew  holders  .it  200,  making  300  in  all  who  were 
represented  on  the  part  of  the  corporators  as  en- 
titled to  vote  in  the  election  of  Wardens  and 
Vestrymen  in  that  church.  I  also  said  the  rep- 
resentations made  by  that  corporation  to  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  N.  York  were  untrue; 
for  that  instead  of  there  being  that  number  of 
corporators,  there  was  but  57  of  the  one  class 
and  68  of  the  other,  making  the  total  number 
125. 

I  now  call  the  attention  of  the  Committee  to 
another  branch,  and  perhaps  a  more  interesting 
branch,  of  this  case  in  connection  with  Trinity 
Church.  It  is  claimed  on  the  part  of  the  per- 
sons who  have  been  deprived  of  the  rights  secur- 
ed to  them  under  the  original  charter  and  the 
laws  of  the  State  of  New  York,  that  the  trust  en- 
trusted to  this  corporation  under  the  charter  and 
laws,  is  administered  to  them  on  party  grounds; 
and  that  in  addition  to  the  administration  of  the 
fund  on  party  grounds,  the  aid  they  render  to 
the  churches  of  New  York,  and  to  those  in  the 
country,  is  rendered  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
create  a  dependence  on  the  corporation  of  Trini- 
ty Church,  on  the  part  of  tliose  who  receive  such 
aid.  This,  I  say,  is  the  claim  made  on  the  part 
of  the  men  who  state  that  they  are  dispossessed 
and  deprived  of  rights  guaranteed  to  them  in 
the  original  charter,  by  the  law  of  1814. 

I  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee to  that  part  of  the  evidence  be;.ring  on 
this  branch  of  the  case  ;  and  I  ask  thum  to  say, 
from  the  proof,  whether  this  corporation,  in  ad- 
ministering the  fund  given  for  tlie  benefit  of  all, 
does  so  impartially  and  fairly,  or  partially  and 
for  the  benefit  of  those  only  who  side  with  Trin- 
ity. And  first  I  call  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee to  page  83  of  the  first  report ;  in  whicli 
tlie  evidence  of  a  clergymp.n  of  the  Episcopal  , 
Church,  who  liad  been  for  18  years  a  minister  j 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  is  given.  He  swears 
before  the  committee  that  he  has  been  acquaint- 
ed with  Trinity  Church,  and  the  management  of 
her  fnnd  in  a  coiisiderable  degree,  and  says,  "  I 
do  not  consider  the  trust  has  been  administered 
in  such  a  way  as  best  to  promote  the  object  for 
which  it  was  given.    Their  course,  in  certain  in- 


9 


stances,  to  my  knowledge,  has  been  partial.  I 
speak  of  their  partiality  as  a  fact,  to  my  certain 
toowledge.  It  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  while 
some  churches  have  had  aid  to  an  excessive 
amount,  others  have  been  entirely  tut  ofif  or  pro- 
scribed." 

I  also  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
page  104  of  the  first  report,  on  which  page  will 
also  be  found  the  testimony  of  a  clergyman  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  who  holds  a 
high  position  in  the  city  of  New  York.  I  allude 
to  the  rector  of  Grace  church,  that  venerable 
and  pious  man,  who,  speaking  on  the  very  point 
to  which  I  am  calling  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee, gives  the  following  evidence  : 

The  question  is  put  as  to  whether  in  his  opin- 
ion Trinity  church  is  doing  her  utmost  to  make 
the  capital  of  the  corporation  available  for  the 
founding,  support,  or  promotion  of  religious, 
charitable,  or  educational  institutions  or  pur- 
poses 1  The  answer  is.  "  from  outward  observa- 
tion of  their  acts,  I  should  say  not." 

The  question  is  then  propounded,  "  In  what 
respect  V  He  replies, — "  Because  they  have  not 
multiplied  churches  throughout  the  city  to  any 
extent,  in  proportion  to  their  means.  The  aid 
which  they  have  extended  to  feeble  churches 
has  been  done  reluctantly  and  offensively,  either 
by  taking  mortgages  on  the  churches  to  which 
they  advanced  money,  or  by  annual  payments 
to  the  support  of  the  minister ;  in  either  way 
increasing  their  power  over  the  corporations  and 
minister  of  the  church  to  an  extent  which  was 
fatal  to  all  independence  of  thought  or  action  on 
the  part  of  such  corporations  or  ministers.  The 
tendency  of  this  action  is  to  enable  her  to  exer- 
cise an  overwhelming  influence  throughout  the 
diocese." 

I  beg  also  to  call  the  attention  of  the  commit- 
tee to  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Anthon,  at  page  109 
of  the  first  report. 

Dr.  Anthon  was  an  assistant  minister  in  Trin- 
ity Church  from  1S31  to  1836.  The  question  is 
propounded  to  him  as  to  the  effect  which  the 
manner  of  making  grants  and  loans  or  aiding 
churches,  has  upon  freedom  of  speech  and  free- 
dom of  action  on  the  part  of  parishes  and  cler- 
gymen. 

A.  In  my  opinion  the  effect  is  seriously  to 
impair  their  independence. 

Q.  In  applications  for  aid,  has  Trinity  church, 
in  your  opinion,  favored  those  whose  party 
Tiews  and  actions  were  similar  to  her  own  ? 

A.  Unquestionably.  For  instance,  while  the 
application  of  St.  .lude's  church  was  pending, 
which  was  ultimately  refused,  it  is  said  grants 
were  made  St.  Luke's,  the  Holy  Apostles,  Dr. 
Seabury's,  and  others. 

I  beg  also  to  refer  the  committee  to  page  10 
of  the  new  report,  and  to  call  their  attention  to 
the  testimony  of  Dr.  Haight,  who  was  sworn  as 
a  witness  on  the  part  of  Trinity  church,  in  the 
proceedings  taken  before  the  committee,  and  who 
says : 

"In  looking  over  the  list  of  parishes  whose 
churches  have  been  moitgaged  to  Trinity  Church, 
I  find  eight,  the  clergy  and  lay  delegates  of 


which,  for  a  series  of  years,  on  all  leading  ques- 
tions spoke  and  voted  differently  from  the  Rec- 
tor and  lay  delegates  of  Trinity.  Two  of  these 
are  mortgaged  for  S25,000,  two  for  $20,000,  one 
for  $5,000,  the  other  three  for  smaller  sums. — 
So,  also,  in  regard  to  the  churches  which  have 
received  grants  of  land  and  money,  or  annual 
stipends.  I  find  nearly  thirty  which  have  taken 
the  same  independent  course  in  convention, 
without  regard  to  the  course  of  Trinity." 

There  are  130  of  that  class  of  churches  allud- 
ed to  by  Dr.  Haight,  which  have  been  mort- 
gaged to  Trinity ;  so  that  out  of  130  churches, 
we  have  ei^ht  who  have  dared  to  raise  their 
voices  against  the  iron  power  Trinity  Church 
would  have  exercised  over  them. 

I  also  call  the  attention  of  the  Committee  to  a 
newspaper  article  which  has  been  placed  in  the 
bauds  of  almost  every  member  of  the  Senate, 
headed  "Trinity  Church. — Answer  to  the  charg- 
es." I  refer  to  that  part  of  the  state- 
ment which  professes  to  give  the  amounts 
that  have  iieen  appropriated  by  Trinity  Church 
to  the  "  High  Churches  "  and  "  Low  Ciiurohes," 
taking  the  twenty  largest  appropriations  to  the 
city  Churches  and  the  country  Churches.  In 
this  connection,  St.  George's,  St.  Mark.3',  Grace 
Chuicb,  Christ  Church,  St.  Michael's,  St.  James, 
St.  Andrew's,  St.  Thomas',  Ascension,  S*..  Peter's, 
and  St.  Bartholomew's  are  mentioned  as  the 
"  Low  Churches  "  in  the  city  ;  and  St.  Stephens" 
Zion,  St.  Clement's,  St.  Luke's,  All  Saint's,  St. 
Phillip'.s,  Annunciation,  Nativity,  and  the  Church 
of  the  Redeemer,  as  the  "  High  Churches." — 
The  gifts  to  "  Low  Churches,"  the  piper  I  hold 
in  my  hand  says,  have  been  $822,000.  To 
"High  Churches"  $254,000.  By  which  it 
would  appear  that  Trinity  Church  was  really 
doing  more  for  the  "  Low  Church  "  in  the  city 
of  New  York,  than  for  the  "  High  Church." 

I  now  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee to  this  most  significant  fact ;  a  fact  that 
stands  out  boldly  and  forcibly,  and  that  if  we 
were  not  well  ac  iuainted  with  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  gifts  and  grants  of  Trinity 
might  blind  the  eyes  of  the  committee  to  the 
facts  as  they  in  reality  exist.  But  how  is  it  in 
truth?  The  gift  to  St.  George's  church  was 
made  in  1812.  That  to  St.  Mark's  in  1795.  That 
to  Grace  church  in  1804  to  1811.  That  to  Christ 
church  in  1805.  And  following  down  through 
the  several  gifts  and  grants,  we  find  them  nearly 
every  one  made  prior  to  1812.  Since  1814, 
where  are  the  gifts  and  grants  made  by  Trinity 
to  the  High  and  Low  churches  of  the  city  of 
New  York.  The  only  gifts  bestowed  upon  the' 
Low  churches  of  the  city  since  1814,  are  those 
to  St.  Thomas,  (S32,000)  in  1827;  to  Ascension 
(815,000)  in  1829  to  1835  ;  and  to  St  Bartholo- 
mew's, in  1839  ;  making  a  total  of  $71,000  for 
all  the  gifts  and  grants  since  1812,  instead  of 
$822,000.  So  when  this  error  is  corrected,  it 
stands  "  gifts  and  grants  to  'Low  churches'  since 
1814,  $71,000  and  High  churches  §254,000,  or 
more  than  double." 

And  while  I  am  speaking  of  the  gifts  and 
grants  by  Trinity  Church  to  the  churches  in  the 


10 


city  of  New  York,  I  cannot  refrain  from  men- 
tioning one  case,  that  of  the  Church  of  St.  Mat- 
thew, in  the  city  of  New  York,  a  little  church, 
with  a  debt  of  only  $1,300,  who  came  begg- 
ing and  beseeching  Trinity  Church  to  grant  her 
aid.  At  that  very  time  Trinity  was  pouring  into 
the  treasuries  of  the  High  Churhes  her  hundreds 
and  thousands  of  dollars  ;  but  she  allowed  St. 
Matthew's  to  die,  and  her  doors  to  be  closed 
within  the  very  sight  of  her  own  proud  spires. 
And  no  excuse  is  oflFered  for  this.  Clergyman 
after  clergyman  is  called  upon  to  give  a  reason 
why  St.  Matthew's  was  thus  treated  ;  but  none 
is  given.  They  say  it  is  a  very  unpleasant  sub- 
ject to  talk  about,  but  we  never  get  at  the  fact 
as  to  what  there  is  so  unpleasant  about  it,  or 
why  they  allowed  her  to  die  at  the  same  time 
that  they  were  giving  to  the  rich  churches  up 
town  their  hundreds  and  thousands  of  dollars. 
I  have  heard  it  whispered  that  it  was  bfeoause 
i     the  pastor  of  the  Church  was  not  exactly  the 

man  to  preside  over  a  congregation. 
I        I  should  like  to  know  whether  this  can  be 
considered  a  sufficient  reaso  i  why  the  congre- 
gation of  St.  Matthews  should  see  their  church 
expire  within  the  very  sound  of  the  music  of  the 
bells  of  Trinity.    I  should  like  to  know  whether 
this  can  be  a  sufficient  reason  why  Trinity,  with 
the  wealth  given  for  aid  of  all  the  Protestant 
!     Episcopal  Churches  in  her  possession,  should 
allow  her  children  to  die  without  stretching 
forth  a  helping  hand.    And  yet  this  corporation 
would  iell  us  that  in  the  distribution  of  the 
1     funds  there  is  no  party  consideration! 

Sir,  this  despotism  of  Trinity  Church  does 
not  stop  with  the  churches  of  New  York.  We 
!     have  seen  it  exemplified  here  so  plainly  that  he 
j      who  runs  may  read,  that  the  power  of  Trinity  is 
I      wielded  over  the  entire  Church,  and  that  those 
I     in  the  country  which  have  received  her  aid  are 
now  called  upon  to  influence  the  legislature  in 
her  behalf.    Witness  the  flood  of  memorials  that 
have  poured  in  upon  us.     I  ask  what  the  Epis- 
copal Churches  outside  of  New  York  can  know 
of  this  proceeding  ;  what  can  they  know  of  the 
j      proceedings  here  at  the  Capitol  ?     What  alarm 
I      has  been  sent  abroad  to  say  to  them  "  remon- 
:      strate  against  this  law  ;"  a  law  the  proposition 
of  which  not  one  out  of  a  hundred  of  them  can 
be  acquainted  with.     I  beg  to  direct  the  atten- 
tion of  the  committee  to  these  remonstrances. — 
It  will  be  seen  that  they  all  come  from  one  press 
— that  they  are  stereotyped,  and  sent  out  by 
Trinity  Church  unto  all  the  Churches  of  this 
State  who  have  received  aid  from  her,  and  who 
are  required  to  remonstrate,  blindfold,  against 
the  passage  of  this  law.     Here  is  the  memor- 
ial : — 

To  the  Honorable  t  he  Senate  .ind  House  of  Assembly  of 
the  State  of  Now  York. 

The  Remonstrance  of  the  undersigned  Mem- 
bers of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the 
United  States,  Inhabitonts  of  Whitestown  in  the 
State  of  New  York,  not  belonging  to  the  Parish 
of  Trinity  Church,  New  York,  respectfully  rep- 
resents: 

That  your  Memorialists  are  opposed  to  any  re- 


peal, alteration,  or  modification  by  the  Legisla- 
ture, of  an  Act  entitled  "An  Act  to  alter  the 
name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  and 
for  other  purposes,"  passed  on  the  2.5th  of  Jan- 
uary 1814.  They  are  convinced  that  such  action 
by  casting  doubt  upon  the  exclusive  rights  of 
the  present  Corporators  of  Trinity  Church  to 
vote  at  the  elections  for  Church  Wardens  and 
Vestrymen  of  that  Parish,  which  they  have  en- 
joyed and  exercised,  without  disturbance,  un- 
der that  Act  for  forty-three  years,  would  destroy 
confidence  in  the  security  of  property.  Your 
Remonstrants  foresee,  moreover,  that  the  direct 
effect  of  such  repeal,  modification,  or  alteration  i 
would  be  very  injurious  to  the  interests  of  coun- 
try Parishes, — and  would  encourage  litigations 
dangerous  to  the  peace  of  the  religious  commu- 
nity, of  which  your  Remonstrants  are  members; 
and  that  if  the  parties  promoting  such  litigations 
should  succeed,  the  elections  of  Trinity  Church 
would  become  scenes  of  disorder  and  unseem- 
ly contest  between  rival  parties  seeking  the 
control  and  management  of  her  estate.  And  j 
your  Remonstrants  will  ever  pray,  &c. 

I  should  like  to  know  who  told  Trinity  Church 
that  the  Senate  in  its  action  sought  to  throw 
doubts  on  the  rig^hts  of  her  corporators,  I  should 
like  to  know  where  Trinity  and  her  corporation 
can  find  any  provision  in  the  proposed  law  that 
can  cast  doubts  on  the  right  of  her  corporators  1  i 
Why,  this  bill  seeks  to  make  plain  those  rights. 
No  person  here  a.'iks  that  any  doubts  shall  be 
thrown  over  these  rights.  We  ask,  that  those 
who  are  corporators  now  should  still  remain 
corporators,  and  that  they  should  go  a  little  fur- 
ther and  restore  rights  to  those  corporators  who 
have  been  deprived  of  them.  This  the  country 
churches  do  not  know  anything  about.  There 
could  not  be  found  one  in  opposition  to  the  bill,  i 
if  they  knew  the  eggregions  wrong  suflered  by 
those  to  whom  it  seeks  to  do  justice. 

They  next  say  that  injustice  is  intended  to 
country  parishes  How  so  ?  What  injustice  t — 
You  simply  open  the  doors,  and  allow  those 
for  whose  use  the  property  was  set  apart  by 
grants  and  charters,  to  vote  and  have  a  choice  ' 
in  the  selections  of  the  Vestrymen  and  Wardens 

who  are  to  administer  that  fund  for  their  use.  

But  they  tell  us  that  the  men  who  apply  here 
for  this  law,  are  proposing  matters  that  must 
be  for  the  injury  of  the  country  churches.  I  can 
only  say  that  I  can  put  my  hand  on  four  of  the 
names  among  the  signatures  on  the  memorial 
for  the  bill,  and  point  you  to  men  who  have  ; 
givenand  are  annually  giving  more  to  the  country  ' 

churches,  than  Trinity  herself  has  ever  given  

And  yet  you  would  tell  me  that  we  are  injuring 
the  country  churches  I    They  say,  too,  that  the 
law  would  encourage  litigatian  :  but  they  do  not 
tell  how.    I  can  hardly  perceive  how  it  would  !, 
encourage  litigation  to  allow  parties  to  vote  who  || 
are  entitled  to  do  so.  |l 

There  is  a  common  error  abroad  in  the  land,  il 
that  this  property  and  Queen's  farm,  are  the 
property  of  Trinity  church.    It  is  the  most  eg- 
gregions error  that  ever  crept  into  the  brain  of 
the  most  credulous  man.    Trinity  church  never 


11 


had  any  right  to  the  property .  She  has  not  to 
this  day  any  right,  except  what  she  gets  under 
the  law  of  1S14.  To  whom  then  does  the  prop- 
erty belong  ?  To  the  corporators.  And  who 
are  the  corporators  ?  Why  the  Rector,  Wardens 
and  Vestrymen — of  what  church  ?  Not  of  Trin- 
ity church,  but  the  Rector,  Wardens  and  Vestry- 
men of  the  Church  of  England  as  by  law  estab- 
lished. Trinity  has  simply  the  name  of  the 
building  ;  but  the  corporation  that  took  the 
land  OS  a  corporation,  had  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  Trinity  church,  as  a  church. 

I  now  call  attention  to  page  42  of  the  ne^r  re- 
port, which  relates  to  another  branch  of  this 
•ubject,  as  to  what  Trinity  has  done.  She  was 
called  on  in  the  original  resolution  of  the  Senate, 
to  report  what  she  had  done  by  the  way  of  en- 
dowing institutions  of  charity  or  benevolence, 
for  her  own  poor.  Well,  it  is  a  remarkable  fact 
that  Trinity  church — the  most  immense  reUgious 
corporation  in  esistener)  within  the  bounds  of  the 
Stale — has  done  nothing  for  institutions  of  char- 
ity or  l«nevolence,  even  for  her  own  poor.  This 
point  is  met  by  a  question  propounded  to  the 
Rector  of  Trinity,  who  replies,  "This  appears  to 
me,  a  most  remarkable  statement.  It  has,  liber- 
ally and  amply  endowed  Trinity  Charity  School, 
which  has  been  doing  immeasurable  good  to  her 
own  poor,  and  others,  from  generation  to  gener- 
ation, and  which,  from  a  munificent  bequest,  of 
which  she  is  just  about  to  come  in  possession, 
promises  to  become  one  of  the  most  important 
institutions  in  the  land.  The  testimony  on  this 
point,  comes  from  a  quarter  where  it  was  but 
little  to  have  been  expected,  and  is  calculated  to 
leave  a  false  impression  on  the  public  mind. — 
Neither  Trinity  parish,  nor  Trinity  corporation, 
have  been  so  uumindful  of  their  own  poor,  as 
the  report  of  the  committe  would  seem  to  im- 
ply." 

In  this  connection,  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
Rector,  in  order  to  show  that  the  statement  that 
she  has  given  nothing  for  such  purposes,  can- 
not be  true,  gives  evidence  of  the  fact  that  she 
has  endowed  "Trinity  Charity  School."  I  should 
like  to  know  how  she  has  endowed  that  school  ? 
It  is  now  rich,  and  how  has  it  become  rich  ? — 
By  Trinity  haying  given  it  lots  when  they  were 
hardly  worth  a  song  ;  and  now  by  the  natural 
rise  and  growth  of  the  city,  these  lots,  original- 
ly worth  nothing,  have  made  the  Charity  com- 
paratively wealthy.  But  the  Rev.  Rector,  in 
speaking  of  this  very  subject,  as  to  the  Institu- 
tions Trinity  has  endowed,  says  "she  has  got 
her  DorciS  Societies,  her  Industrial  Schools,  her 
Parish  Schools."  I  should  again  like  to  know 
where  her  endo  vments  of  these  schools  have 
oome  from.  Her  schools  are  most  decidedly  the 
richest  speculations  Trinity  Church  has  made  in 
her  "endowments"  to  Institutions,  to  charity  or 
benevolence.  "She  make  annual  and  occasional 
coll  -"tions,"  he  further  says,  "in  her  parishes." 

W  rill,  I  would  like  to  know  what  church  does 
tut  make  these  annual  collections.  Why,  if 
these  are  to  be  called  endowments,  then  the 
little,  humble  church  to  which  I  am  attached, 
poor  and  in  debt  as  she  is,  ia  making  endow- 


ments. But  Trinity  employs  "  lay  agents"  it  is 
said,  "whose  business  it  is  to  give  needful  as- 
sistance and  council  to  the  emigrant,  on  his  ar- 
rival at  this  port ;  to  visit  the  suffering  poor, 
and  ascertain  their  fitness  for  the  bounty  of  the 
ehorch,  and  to  search  out  the  ignorant  for  re- 
ligious instruction." 

Well,  I  do  not  know  but  that  it  is  meant  to 
claim  this  as  an  "endowment,"  because  it  pays 
the  men  it  thus  employs  a  salary  of  $1,600  a 
year.  Sir,  there  is  not  in  the  annals  of  history; 
there  cannot  be  found  in  history,  any  other 
church,  with  such  ample  means,  with  prop- 
erty large  enough  to  endow  every  other  church 
in  New  York,  that  does  not  raise  her  hands  in 
support  of  her  poor  sister  churehes.  When 
asked  for  aid,  her  reply  is  that  she  is  already  in 
debt  six  hundred  thousand  dollars.  She  owes 
this  large  sum,  and  cannot  give  anything  away. 
She  would  like  to  give,  but  is  not  able.  Oh, 
no  !  When  the  churches  of  the  city  call  upon 
her  for  aid,  it  is  a  very  easy  matter  for  her  to 
say,  "we  can't  give,  because  our  debt  is  $600,- 
000,  and  that  makes  us  poor,"  but  she  does  not 
stop  long  enough  to  tell  us  how  that  debt  was 
incurred  She  does  not  tell  us  that  churches  in 
the  city  of  New  York — wealthy  churches — have 
received  from  her  hands  from  time  to  time,  those 
immense  sums  of  money  which  have  taken  from 
her  treasury  all  she  has,  and  that  therefore  she 
has  incurred  this  debt. 

I  ought  to  say,  and  I  do  say  here,  in  justice  to 
some  of  the  vestrymen  of  the  church,  that  while 
some  have  favored  the  erection  of  those  magni- 
ficent temples,  others  have  persistently  resisted 
such  a  policy  ;  but  in  vain.  They  have  brought 
in  their  estimates  and  bills  of  $60,000 ;  and 
when  the  structures  have  been  built,  they  have 
cost  5260,000  or  $270,000. 

Sir,  Trinity  can,  when  it  is  to  gratify  those 
upon  whom  she  can  rely  for  support  and  in- 
creased strength,  put  her  hand  into  her  pocket, 
and  with  a  princely  liberality  help  to  raise  up 
magnificent  and  costly  temples,  carved  and 
sculptured  as  by  an  Angel's  hand  ;  but  when  a 
cry  of  help  comes  from  those  from  whom  she 
can  expect  no  power,  her  reply  is  "we  should 
love  to  give,  but  our  debt  will  not  allow  us." 

And  how  is  it  with  regard  to  the  interest  of 
that  debt  ?  How  is  the  management  of  the  fund 
carried  on  to-day  ?  Why,  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  Church,  if  not  shielded  beneath  the  garb 
of  a  religious  society,  would  every  one  be  sent  to 
a  Mad  House.  Why,  with  a  debt  of  5600,000, 
and  with  their  whole  vast  property  yielding  them 
less  than  $100,000  a  year  I  They  say  it  is  out 
on  long  leases  This  is  not  trae,  as  a  matter  of 
fact.  Half  of  it  has  reverted  back.  They  have 
three  millions  of  dollars  worth  of  property, 
which  at  7  per  cent  would  yield  them  $210,000. 
But  they  prefer  to  keep  their  real  estate — and 
when  I  say  they,  I  speak  of  the  standing  com- 
mittee who  represent  Trinity  Church  in  the 
Green  Rooms  of  the  councils,  and  who  use  the 
funds,  not  for  the  purpose  for  which  they  were 
originally  designed,  but  to  keep  them  fast,  in- 
«reaaing  and  swelling  up  in  their  hands.  Her 


12 


policy  now  is  not  the  same  as  it  was  prior  to 
1814.  She  holds  her  lands  now,  and  builds 
magaiSuent  Churches,  and  lays  out  immense 
sums  upon  thnm,  and  when  the  poor  Churches 
come  to  beg  of  her,  she  has  not  a  dollar  for  them. 

And  yet  you  tell  me,  with  this  immense 
amount  of  property  on  your  hands,  that  this  is 
good  management!  I  wonder  if  the  125  corpo- 
rator's of  the  church,  understands  what  the  man- 
agement of  this  fund  by  the  corporation  really 
is.  I  wonder  whether  they  know  what  these 
vestrymen  and  wardens  are  doing  ?  No,  Sir.— 
Not  a  word  ever  reaches  them.  No  report  is  ever 
given  to  the  corporators.  The  wardens  and 
vestrymen  are  placed  there  only  as  Trustees,  and 
vet  they  never  account  for  the  management  of 
the  fund,  to  those  for  whose  benefit  it  has  orig- 
inally given. 

Mr.  Chairman,  these  remarks  that  I  make 
about  this  corporation,  do  not  affect  Trinity 
Church  nor  her  parishes  and  her  clergy.  It  is 
any  thing  when  I  say  Trinity  Church  and  her 
parishes,  and  another  when  I  say  "this  corpora- 
tion.-' When  I  come  to  speak  of  Trinity  Church 
and  her  clergy,  lean  speak  of  the  good  they 
be  doing  in  the  city  ot  New  York  ;  for  there  can 
are  no  question  that  they  are  doing  great  good  in 
the  cause  of  religion,  and  taking  care  of  their 
poor,  as  other  churches  do.  But  when  I  speak 
of  the  corporation,  I  speak  of  it  distinct  from  the 
clergy,  for  they  know  nothing  about  its  affairs. 
There  is  not  one  assistant  minister  who  has  any 
knowledge  of  the  affairs  of  the  corporation. 

Sir  :  This  corporation  deserves  great  credit  for 
Bome  things,  and  I  am  willing  to  give  her  all 
that  of  riglit  belongs  to  her.  She  has  erected 
Trinity  Church  at  the  head  of  Wall  street,  look- 
ing down  upon  the  great  money  depot  of  that 
wealthy  city,  Vith  her  lofty  spire  piercing 
the  sky,  and  her  merry  bells  ringing  out  their 
music  in  the  ears  of  all,  and  giving  as  pief.sant 
an  invitation  to  the  rich,  to  those  who  love  to 
sit  beneath  her  sanctuary.  For  all  this— for  the 
other  magnificent  edifices  she  has  built  up  in 
the  city  of  New  York— for  founding  her  Saving 
Societies  and  her  industrial  schools,  she  doubt- 
less deserves  great  credit.  But  I  might  stop 
here  and  ask  whether,  while  she  has  done  all 
this,  she  has  not  a  little  overdone  it,  by  fitting 
and  furnishing  some  of  the  churches  in  a  style 
of  splendor  and  magnificance,  almost  forbidding 
to  the  humble  christian  wanderer  who  seeks  to 
enter  her  doors.  Her  velvet  cushions,  her  crim- 
son draperies,  and  all  her  gorgeous  embellish- 
ments may  well  attract  the  rich  and  luxurious  ; 
but  the  poor  rarely  seek  Trinity  Church,  to  hear 
the  word  of  God  from  the  minister's  lips. 

We  have  heard  on  several  occasions  within 
the  last  few  years,  in  these  Senate  Halls,  the 
voice  of  warning  as  to  the  power  which  the 
Papist  church  exercises  over  the  minds  of  men. 
We  have  been  continually  reminded  of  the  dan- 
gerous power  which  that  church  wields  over  the 
will  and  action  of  its  communicants.  We  are 
reminded,  too,  from  time  to  time,  that  there  are 
powerful  corporations  in  the  State  of  Nev  York, 
which-exerclse  aa  undue  control  over  the  pow- 


ers that  be,  in  the  State  Government.    The  note  Hi 

of  alarm  is  constantly  sounded  on  this  key. — 
But  I  ask.  Sir,  is  there  any  power  now  existing, 
or  that  ever  did  exist  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
stronger,  and  bolder,  and  more  defiant  than  this 
corporation  ?    A  pow^r  that  starting  first  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  and  that  when  the  Senate 
pass  resolutions  affecting  it,  defies  the  Legislature  i 
of  the  State,  and  proudly  says,  "  you  have  no 
right  to  call  upon  me  for  information."    A  pow- 
er that,  when  the  committee  appointed  under 
the  authority  of  the  Senate  seek  to  discharge  B 
their  duty,  and  to  take  testimony  as  to  the  af-  ie 
fairs  of  Trinity,  would  crush  out  that  committee,  id 
and  hold  it  up  to  the  scorn  of  of  the  people  of  tb 
the  State  of  New  York.     A  power  that  is  not  Si 
content  with  the  attempt  to  extend  its  influeno-  jni 
over  the  committee,  but  creeps  slowly  and  steal- 
thily into  the  Legislature,  defies  the  State  herself  tl 
and  declares  that  it  holds  grants  from  the  Brit-  ja 
ish  crown,  which  are  over  and  above  all  laws  of  ei 
the  State  of  New  York.  Ed 
But  I  ask  the  Senate  to  remember  that  this    j  li 
power  is,  after  all,  but  a  grasping  corporation. —  ii 
Although  she  has  behind  her  the  proud  spire  of  pt 
Trinity  churcli,  yet  I  know  not  why  she  should  ji 
have  any  more  rights  or  authority  here  than  a 
bank  corporation,  an  insurance  corporation,  or  a  ti 
railroad  corporation.  ei 

Sir,  this  power  rules  also  the  Conventions. —  p 
She  does  not  stop  at  ruling  in  the  city  and  at  g 
the  Capital  of  the  State,  but  she  rules  and  con-  ; 
trol  by  her  own  will  the    members    of  the  f 
Convention  of  the  Diocese.    And  what  is  proba-  1 
bly  more  to  be  regretted  than  aught  else,  she  li 
controls  her  Bishop.    The  Head  of  the  church  V 
is  called  to  her  aid,  and  puts  forth  his  power  in  el 
order  to  defeat  all  but  the  right  sort  of  men. —    i  c 
But  not  only  does  she  exercise  this  in  the  diocese   ■  ■ 
in  which  she  exists,  and  where  her  business  is 
carried  on,  but  she  goes  into  another  diocese, 
and  drags  into  her  meshes  another  Bishop. —  i 
And  yet  we  are  told  that  Trinity  Church  knows 
no  party,  and  has  no  ambition! 

I  have  already  said  that  this  power  rules  the 
country  church.    Yesterday  morning,  more  by 
way  of  curio.«ity  than  from  anyother  feeling  I  took 
up  the  list  of  remonstrances,  to  see  who  it  was 
from  the  country  that  was  pressing  these  memo-  o 
rials  regarding  the  amendment  of  the  law  of  ■ 
1814.  I  find  that  of  the  churches  memorializing  ] 
the  Senate,  there  are  in  all  41.    Of  these,  5  are  ] 
Low  and  3G  are  High  churches. 

But  however  cruel,  cold  and  merciless  Trinity 
church  may  be  in  the  use  of  the  fund  placed  in 
her  hands  to  aid  the  cause  of  religion  ;  however 
much  the  interests  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Cliurch  of  the  city  of  New  York  may  suffer 
from  lier  policy,  I  would  invoke  here  no  feeling  ( 
against  her.    I  desire  the  cool,  calm,  deliberate  i 
judgment  of  the  Senate  on  the  matters  before  it.  i 
I  ask  for  no  excitement  of  feeling.     Let  us  lay  I 
aside  all  prejudices  on  either  side,  and  meet  this  I 
question  as  we  meet  all  otlier  questions,  unbias-  i 
sed  and  uncontrolled  by  any  influences  that  may  ij 
seek  to  reach  us  under  the  garb  of  religion. —  '\ 
Let  us  meet  it  with  judgments  clear,  and  with  l| 


13 


minds  accurately  fixed  on  tho  true  matters  in 
dispute  between  the  corporation  as  it  now  exists, 
and  the  corporators  whose  rights  were  stripped 
from  them  by  the  law  whose  injustice  we  seek 
now  to  redress.  I  ask  not  that  the  bill  introduc- 
ed here,  may  be  support? d  by  any  member  of 
the  Senate,  unless  he  shall  be  satisfied  that  its 
provisions  are  just.  I  ask  not  for  Legislative 
action  against  this  corporation,  unless  those  who 
were  originally  corporators  under  the  grant  of 
1697  and  the  laws  of  1784  and  1788,  are  entitled 
to  rights  of  which  they  have  been  improperly 
deprived.  But  if  th^y  have  any  vested  rights 
nnder  that  original  grant  and  the  susequentlaws, 
then  I  say  that  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
New  York  is  bound  to  protect  those  vested 
rights,  wrested  from  them  by  the  act  of  1814. 

Sir,  I  speak  not  for  the  living  only,  but  for 
those  who  are  yet  to  come,  for  they  also  are  in- 
jured by  the  law.  It  was  not  for  the  inhabitants 
of  New  York,  in  commanion  of  the  church  of 
England  in  1697  ;  but  for  those  inhabiting  and 
to  inhabit  the  city  that  the  grant  was  made.  It 
was  to  them  and  not  to  Trinity  church  that  the 
property  was  given  ;  she  was  simply  a  trustee — 
nothing  more. 

Now  as  to  the  question  whether  or  not  she  has 
administered  the  funds  wisely.  If  sh'^  had  giv- 
en to  the  ;:oor  churches  as  she  should  have 
given;  if  the  fund  had  been  distributed  for  the 
good  of  the  church  and  of  the  people,  then  I 
grant  there  might  have  been  some  ground  for 
Baying  there  should  be  no  amendment  to  the 
law  of  1814.  But  if  it  is  clear  that  prior  to  1814 
there  was  such  trust,  and  thatthe  property  thus 
held  for  the  benefit  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
city  of  New  York  is  now  improperly  managed 
and  unfairly  appropriated,  then  is  it  not  a  duty 
we  owe  to  those  now  upon  the  stage  of  life,  and 
to  all  who  are  to  come  after  them,  to  reform 
these  evils,  and  to  rescue  from  Trinity  church 
and  her  carporation,  the  rights  of  these  parties 
80  long  diveHed  from  them. 

Why,  the  asser;ion  is  made  thatthe  original 
corporators  have  enjoyed  these  wrongs  so  long, 
that  they  begin  to  ripen  into  rights  !  That  the 
wrongs  to  these  bonefloiaries  having  been  suflfer- 
ed  to  quietly  exist  for  forty  long  years,  they 
ought  not  now  to  ask  for  their  removal.  I  an- 
swer, that  if  there  is  a  right  existing — if  these 
people  were  the  original  corporators — if  the  pro- 
perty was  granted  to  their  use — then  there  is  no 
power  in  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  New 
York  which  can  divest  them  of  those  rights  or 
deprive  them  of  that  property.  I  repeat,  that  if 
the  original  corporators  had  rights  under  the 
original  grant,  no  law  that  the  State  of  New  York 
can  pass  can  take  away  those  rights.  They  re- 
main secure  and  inviolable  for  ever. 

Mr.  Chairman  :  I  have  already  occupied  the 
attention  of  the  Committee  for  too  long  a  time  ; 
but  I  deemed  it  nece.^sary  after  examining  the 
testimony,  to  briefly  call  the  attention  of  Sena- 
tors to  matters  which  came  up  before  the  Com- 
mittee, because  I  know  it  is  impossible — volu- 
minous as  that  testimony  is — in  the  press  of 
other  business,  to  read  one  half  of  it.    I  again 


call  upon  Senators  to  enter  upon  the  investiga- 
tion of  this  matter  without  passion  or  feeling; 
to  exercise  their  best  judgment  in  deliberating 
upon  it ;  and  if  in  their  opinion  the  law  of  1814 
did  deprive  these  men  of  any  of  their  rights, 
then  I  ask  them  to  place  the  original  corpora- 
tors in  the  same  position  they  occupied  prior  to 
the  law  of  1814.  There  is  to  be  no  overturning 
of  Trinity  Church,  as  has  been  represented  in 
the  country,  and  at  this  Capitol.  The  same 
men  who  are  Corporators  now,  will  remain  Cor- 
porators still.  The  only  amendment  offered, 
and  the  object  of  the  bill,  is  to  restore  to  the 
original  Corporators  the  rights  they  enjoyed 
from  the  year  1697  up  to  the  year  1814. 

SPEECH  OF  Mr.  WADSWORTH, 

IN  BEHALF  OF  TRINITY. 

IN  SENATE ....  March  27. 

At  the  close  of  Mr.  Noxon's  remarks,  Mr. 
Wadsworth  said : — 

Mr.  Chairman  : — I  feel  oppressed — deeply  op- 
pressed— by  the  fearful  responsibility  which  in 
my  judgment  now  weighs  upon  this  Senate. — 
The  State  is  being  tempted — the  power  of  the 
State,  by  the  bill  before  us,  and  still  more  by 
the  substitute  for  that  bill,  is  being  invoked  to 
perpetrate  a  crime,  which,  if  perpetrated,  will 
ring  through  the  ears  of  Christendom.  I 
feel,  in  view  of  the  importance  of  the  action  we 
are  called  upon  to  take,  that  it  is  my  duty  to 
warn  the  Senate,  and  to  say,  in  the  eloquent  lan- 
guage of  Burke — 

"  Better  it  is  to  be  aroused  from  our  slumber 
by  the  alarm  of  the  fire-bell,  than  to  sleep  on 
undisturbed  and  perish  by  the  flame  in  our  beds." 

There  is  a  magnitude  attached  to  this  question 
which,  in  my  judgment,  attaches  to  no  other 
question  on  which  we  have  been  called  upon 
to  act ;  and  it  must  be  my  apology  for  submit- 
ting, however  imperfectly,  to  the  Senate,  my 
deep  and  earnest  convictions  of  the  momentous 
moral  considerations  involved  in  this  subject. 

The  ancient  and  venerable  Corporation  of  Tri- 
nity Church,  now  stands  arraigned  before  the 
Legislature,  for  several  grave  offences.  What 
are  those  crimes,  and  what  the  head  and  front 
of  her  offending  ?  The  first  is,  that  she  possesses 
enormous  wealth.  What  is  that  wealth,  and 
how  acquired?  In  1695,  when  New  York  was 
but  a  hamlet ;  when  her  high  wall  kept  the  sav- 
age out  of  the  petty  village,  a  little  church  was 
established — the  foundation  of  Trinity  was  laid 
just  within  the  walls,  that  the  devotions  of  her 
connregation  might  be  carried  on  in  peace. 

Where  Trinity  .stands  is  her  cemetery,  also, 
where  slumbers  Alexander  Hamilton  ;  where 
rest  the  ashes  of  Lawrence,  forever  to  be  re- 
membered for  those  memorable  words — "  Don't 
give  up  the  ship !" 

Moving  a  little  into  the  outskirts,  we  find 
the  church  in  1704  possessed  of  a  farm — al- 
most or  quite  out  of  the  village — called  th« 
King's  farm,  then  yielding  a  yearly  rent  of  30 
colonial  pounds  a  year.    On  ths  south  end  of 


I 


14 


thif  oxm,  she  erected  the  ohapel  of  St.  Paul's, 
laying  out  the  remainder  of  the  block  as  a 
cemetery. 

In  due  course  of  time,  she  erected  on  another 
portion  of  the  farm  her  chapel  of  St.  John's, 
attaching  to  it  two  other  blocks  as  an  open  orna- 
mental Park,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Church  and 
the  neighborhood. 

These,  gentlemen,  together  with  the  remain- 
ing portions  of  the  farm,  which  blessed  Queen 
Anne  bestowed  upon  her,  constitute  the  whole 
of  Trinity's  possessions  ;  and  of  these  then 
modest  possessions,  while  not  one  rod  of  land 
has  been  added  thereto,  more  than  two-thirds 
have  already  been  sold  by  this  persecuted  corpora- 
tion, for  the  benefit  of  the  christian  world. 

The  iecond  crime  urged  against  Trinity  is  that 
she  will  not  fell  nor  divide  her  consecrated 
grounds,  so  sacred  in  the  memory  of  the  cburch 
It  is  perhaps  the  m'sfortune  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  that  something  of  the  old  Catholic  faith 
attaches  to  her,  and  that  she  believes  that  ground 
once  consecrated  should  remain  consecrated  for- 
ever. 

Now  I  claim  that  there  are  two  parties  who 
appear  on  the  record  against  Trinity  church. — 
The  one,  the  speculative  philosophers  of  Wall 
street,  who  regard  Trinity  spire  as  it  stands  se- 
renely looking  down  upon  that  scene  of  selfish 
and  worldly  strife,  simply  as  an  obstruction 
which  prevents  Wall  street  from  being  run 
through  to  the  Hudson  River. 

In  the  cool  philosophy  of  these  gentlemen,  the 
twenty  corporations  who  have  abandoned  their 
sacred  edifices.with  all  their  hallowed  traditions, 
in  the  older  part  of  the  city,  have  set  a  lauda- 
ble example.  Under  their  bidding,  church  after 
church,  grave  yard  after  grave  yard,  have  fallen 
before  the  inexorable  greed  of  gain,  until  the  last 
relic  of  the  Episcopal  faith.  Trinity,  with  its  ve- 
nerable chapels  and  cemeteries,  is  now  called  on 
to  give  way  to  the  all  devouring  demands  of 
trade. 

These  commercial  philosophers  have  found 
a  ready  and  most  unscrupulous  auxiliary,  in 
a  knot  of  enterprising  gentlemen  glorying  in 
the  name  of  "  Low  Churchmen,"  who  not 
of  Trinity,  but  contemning  her  doctrines  and 
practices,  is  yet  ambitions  to  become  pos- 
sessor  and  ministrant  of  her  oifices,  wealth  and 
power.  These  two  combined,  would  pervert  the 
properties  of  the  church  to  purposes  far  other 
than  the  evangelizing  or  christianizing  of  the 
world. 

Trinity  resists  them.  She  does  not  need 
money  so  much  as  to  sell  her  dead  ancestry.  She 
will  not  part  with  the  dust  of  Alexander  Hamil- 
ton, though  each  separate  particle  might  yield 
its  ruby.  He  who  sleeps  there,  over  whose 
grave  the  Father  of  his  Country  might  well  have 
wept,  and  above  whose  ashes  the  trampling  of 
ever  busy  generations  is  heard,  though  he  shall 
hear  them  not  any  more  for  ever — should  he  not 
sleep — aye  in  the  very  heart  of  the  commercial 
capital  of  the  Union — as  sacredly  and  undistur- 
bedly as  the  Duke  of  Wellington  sleeps  in  St. 
Paul's  Churchyard— in  the  busy  street  in  the 


very  heart  of  the  world's  metropolis — in  the  ap- 
propriate spot  selected  responsively  to  the  great 
public  voice,  wliich  asked — 
"Where  shal  1  we  lay  the  man  whom  wo  deplore  7 

"Where  the  Bounds  of  those  he  wrought  lor, 
"And  'he  feet  of  those  he  fought  for, 
"Shall  echo  round  his  bones  for  evermore !" 

No,  Sir!  Trinity  will  not  sell  this  precious 
ground.  This  sordid  corporation — this  grasp- 
ing vestry,  obstinately  refuse  to  take  the  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  they  might  realise  by  selling 
the  consecrated  dust. 

But  let  us  pass  on  to  St.  Paul's  Churchyard. 
What  treasures  has  Trinity,  there  ?  About  two 
acres  of  ground  constitute  the  cemetery  of  this 
Church.  There,  too,  slumber  others  of  her 
honored  dead — not  so  distinguished,  perhaps, 
as  our  Hamilton  and  Lawrence — among  them  a 
couple  of  Irishmen,  not  quite  unknown  to  fame, 
only  a  couple  of  Irishmen,  Thomas  Addis  Em- 
mett,  the  glory  of  the  New  York  bar,  and  gal- 
lant Montgomery,  the  hero  of  Quebec.  Now 
it  is  a  shortsighted,  unthrifty  policy  on  the  part 
of  this  stupid  vestry,  not  to  sell  the  dust  of  these 
two  Irishmen  for  a  million  and  a  half  of  dollars. 
Yet  Trinity  does  obstinately  refuse  to  part  with 
the  sacred  spot 

"Where  the  forefathers  of  the  hamlet  Bleep," 
where,  besides  the  two  Irishmen  I  have  nam- 
ed, the  dust  of  some  ten  thousand  Americans  is 
laid.  And  this  constitutes  Trinity's  second 
crime,  while  the  speculative  philosophers  of 
Wall  street  aided  by  their  ecclesiastical  allies 
would  fain  destroy  this  old-fashioned  guardian- 
ship, which  protecting  the  ashes  of  our  ances- 
tors, preserves  and  perpetuates  their  principles 
and  virtues. 

Again,  we  trace  the  work  of  these  enlighten- 
ed reformers,  in  the  attempt  to  purchase  St. 
John's  church  yard — or  I  should  say,  St.  John's 
Park.  In  the  great  mart  of  commerce  there  is 
one  leafy  spot  where  the  ringing  laughter  and 
noisy  gambols  of  childhood  go  on  through  the 
live-long  day ;  where, through  sequestered  walks, 
the  sober  matron  and  the  joyous  maiden  can  in 
summer  see,  in  the  wide  spread  foliage  above, 
the  kindly  beneficence  of  an  overruling  provi- 
dence ;  and  in  winter,  through  the  long,  bare 
arms  of  the  leafless  tree,  can  gaze  without  ob- 
struction upward  to  the  dwelling  place  of  God. 

A  few  speculators  thought  this  a  good  spot 
for  a  Post  Office.  They  applied  to  the  Church 
to  know  on  what  terms  it  could  be  purchased. 
Trinity  met  them — not  to  drive  a  bargain,  but 
to  drive  them  away  from  the  speculation — and 
with  that  view  asked  for  the  property  the  four 
hundred  thousand  dollars  of  which  we  have 
heard  so  much.  It  was  but  a  courteous  method 
of  discountenancing  a  selfish  proposition. 

I  now  come,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  the  third  crime 
charged  against  this  corporation.  It  is  that  she 
has  rebuilt  Trinity  in  a  style  which  comports 
with  her  dignity  and  possessions,  and  preserves 
her  other  magnificent  constructions,  in  a  locality 
where,  by  the  demolition  of  some  thirty  ehuroh- 
es  in  the  last  half  century,  there  would,  without 
them,  be  one  widespread  moral  waste.    Sir,  it 


15 


seemed  fitting  that  Trinity,  upon  tliis  exact  spot, 
shoaldrear  aloft  her  spire,  in  sucli  singular  con- 
trast with  the  scene  below;  where,while  it  rebukes 
Mammon  in  his  temple,  it  also  catches  the 
eye  of  the  emigrant  as  he  crosses  the  Atlantic, 
and  tells  him  that  England's  great  and  sainted 
Church,  whose  memories  were  with  him  when 
in  tears  he  bade  his  native  shores  good  night, 
exists  and  flourishes  in  the  land  which  stands 
ready  to  receive  him  to  its  bosom  and  to  offer 
him  a  happy  and  a  prosperous  home.  Nor 
should  we  forget,  here,  that  that  Church, 
through  her  appointed  ministers,  meets  the 
wanderer  as  he  leaves  the  ship,  to  throw  around 
him  her  fostering  care,  and  guide  his  footsteps 
through  those  perils  and  temptations  which 
too  surely  beset  the  stranger  in  a  foreign  land. 

Is  it,  then,  a  crime,  that  Trinity  has  re-built 
her  church  ?  Sir,  if  there  be  in  that  great 
restless,  struggling,  busy  city,  one  object  of 
sense  more  typical  than  any  other  of  the  sleep- 
less eye  of  God  looking  down  on  man,  it  is  the 
solemn  spire  of  Trinity  serenely  standing  in  the 
fullness  and  beauty  of  her  religious  strength,  re- 
garding with  fixed  and  unalterable  mien  the 
writhing,  wrestling  world  of  Wall  street  at  her 
feet.  The  moral  malady  of  that  great  metropo- 
lis rages  in  greatest  intensity  on  that  very  spot — 
copied  in  its  counterpart,  the  Fifth  Avenue — the 
base  cupidity  of  the  one  feeding  the  empty  os- 
tentation of  the  other.  Sir,  it  is  well,  it  is  very 
well,  that  Trinity  stands  where  she  does,  a  per- 
petual warning  and  rebuke  to  both.  Aye,  sir, 
until  public  faith  and  public  virtue  be  quite 
extinct,  there  she  will  firmly  stand,  despite  the 
efforts  of  those  who,  as  between  two  thieves,  now 
seek  to  crucify  her. 

We  are  told,  too,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this 
adornment  of  her  sanctuaries  is,  on  the  part  of 
Trinity,  a  wasteful  expenditure  of  money.  Is 
this  a  time  for  the  great  Protestant  Episcopal 
church  to  count  the  cost  of  her  constructions, 
when  the  Papal  Hierarchy,  after  covering  one 
continent  with  her  venerable  cathedrals,  through 
which,  more  perhaps  than  through  any  other 
cause,  she  has  been  enabled  to  control  the  faith 
of  men  and  of  nations,  is  at  this  hour,  within 
the  very  sight  of  Trinity,  laying  the  foundations 
at  an  outlay  exceeding  a  million  of  dollars  of  a 
majestic  cathedral  whosy  grandeur,  shall  be 
withont  compare  on  the  continent  of  America ; 
whose  architectural  proportions  shall  embrace 
all  the  beauty  and  grandeur  of  ancient  and  of 
modem  art;  whose  two  stone  towers  shall 
each  in  their  sublimity  rise  to  a  point  one 
hnndred  feet  exceeding  the  highest  pinnacle  of 
Trinity  ?  Is  this  a  time,  I  say,  to  reproach  a  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  church,  for  the  greatness  of  her 
possessions,  to  begrudge  the  expenditure  in  the 
comparatively  modest  edifices  against  which  these 
railing  accusations  are  brought  ?  Is  this  a  time, 
when  the  Church  of  Rome  is  thus  concentrating 
snd  consolidating  her  power  and  influence,  to  say 
ttiat  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  shall  not  be 
permitted  to  lift  up  even  on"  spire  like  Trinity  ? 

In  my  opinion,  if  there  ever  was  a  time  when 
the  Protestant  heart  should  rejoice  over  her  one 


undivided  Church,  it  is  now ;  when  Baptists 
and  Presbyterians  and  Methodists  are  being  rent 
asunder  by  the  fanaticism  of  the  day.  It  is  now 
that  she  should  patriotically,  as  well  as  religious- 
ly rejoice  that  the  Episcopal  Church,  the  one  un- 
divided, indivisible  church  of  this  great  Union — 
should  stand  firmly  and  grandly  erect  with 
her  array  of  thirty-one  Bishops  representing  the 
unity  of  the  Church  as  co-extensive  with  the 
nation.  I  who  am  no  churchman,  nor  the  son 
of  a  churchman  ;  I,  who  have  no  interest  in 
this  matter  beyond  the  moral  advancement 
of  the  age  ;  I  rejoice  to  see  the  bulwarks  of 
this  mighty  Church  so  strong ;  and  I  believe 
that  it  would  be  a  parricidal  act,  if  by  the 
illegal  and  unconstitutional  provisions  of  this 
substitute  and  bill  we  should  disintegrate 
and  dissipate  the  vast  properties  of  this  Church  ; 
the  only  Church  that  in  the  hour  of  trial  could, 
from  her  extent,  safely  or  successfully  wrestle 
with  the  concentrated  power  of  the  Papal  Hier- 
archy. 

I  deem  it  my  duty  to  resist  this  bill  further, 
because,  if  its  principles  should  be  carried  out 
and  sustained  by  the  judgment  of  the  courts, 
they  would  remove  the  last  muniment  of  con- 
stitutional protection  upon  which  alone  the 
rights  of  individual  property  can  safely  repose. 
Sir,  I  am  no  conservative.  I  have  ever  walked 
in  the  path  of  the  radical  democracy.  I  believe 
that  man,  and  society,  and  government  pro- 
gresses and  ought  steadily  to  advance  through 
progress  in  their  laws.  But  progress  is  not  Jacob- 
inism. Sir,  the  alarming  manifestations  in  urging 
forward  the  present  most  pernicious  and  de- 
structive measure,  compel  me  to  conservatism. 

Mr.  Wadsworth  here  gave  way  to  a  motion 
for  adjournment. 

IN  SENATE  March  28,  11^  A.  M. 

The  Senate  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  re- 
sumed the  discuision  of  the  Trinity  Church  bUl. 

Mr.  Wadsworth,  having  the  floor,  resumed 
his  remarks.    He  said  : 

Mr.  Chairman  : — My  health  is  hardly  equal 
to  the  task  of  entering  upon  the  discussion  of 
this  question  to-day  ;  but  in  order  that  no  time 
may  be  lost  to  the  Senate,  I  have  resolved  to  do 
so.  When  the  Committee  rose  at  its  last  session 
I  was  endeavoring  to  defend  the  church  from 
any  reproach  sought  to  be  cast  on  her,  because 
of  the  costliness  of  her  architecture,  and  because 
In  the  opinion  of  the  Honorable  Senator  from 
the  22d,  her  velvet  cushions  are  too  rich  and 
luxurious  to  be  used  as  sittings  for  the  humble 
poor.  I  was  expressing  my  amazement  that  any 
churchman,  in  view  of  the  facts  then  presented, 
that  the  Catholic  Hierarchy  is  at  this  hour  seek- 
ing by  its  mighty  public  edifices,  to  overshadow 
the  city,  the  State  and  the  nation; — and  when 
I  speak  of  the  Catholic  clergy  I  speak  of  them, 
as  I  always  do  and  always  shall,  with  the  deep- 
est respect — I  was  expressing  my  amazement,  I 
say.  that  any  one  of  the  Protestant  faith  should 
not  concede  the  fact  that  a  church  possessing 
wealth,  has  a  right,  and  that  it  is  her  bounden 
duty  to  magnify  herself,  and  make  herself  hon- 
orable among  men. 


16 


Sir,  I  am  delighted  that  my  eye  has  at  this 
moment  fallen  upon  the  evidence  of  Bishop 
Horatio  Potter,  one  of  the  best  and  purest  and 
brightest  lights  of  the  church,  whose  words  so 
completely  vindicate  the  position  of  Trinity,  and 
the  line  of  argument  which  I  had  assumed  in 
her  defence. 

In  speaking  of  the  great  sanctuary  of  the  Eng- 
lish Church,  and  in  reply  to  the  pressing  ques- 
tions of  the  Committee  of  the  Senate  In  relation 
to  Trinity's  constructions,  he  says  : 

"  I  consider  that  Trinity  Church  only  did  her 
duty  in  making  them  models  ot  ecclesiastical 
architecture.  Her  wealth  had  been  created  main- 
ly by  the  growth  of  the  city.  She  therefore 
owed  to  the  city  some  contribution  in  the  way 
of  beautiful  and  magnificent  edifices.  And  with 
her  wealth,  she  owed  it  equally  to  the  character 
of  her  own  communion.  Had  Trinity,  with  its 
means,  limited  itself  to  the  erection  ot  buildings 
at  a  moderate  cost,  I  have  no  doubt  the  parish 
would  have  been  severely  censured,  both  by  the 
church  and  by  the  community  generally.  As  a 
general  thing,  I  believe  a  few  costly  churches 
are  of  great  utility  to  the  interests  of  religion.  I 
have  no  doubt  that  Westminister  Abbey  has,  in 
the  course  of  ages,  been  worth  to  the  influence 
of  Divine  Truth  in  the  world,  vastly  more  than 
all  that  it  ever  co.st." 

Impressive  wor'ls,  that  should  be,  and  will  be 
forever  embalmed  in  the  History  of  the  Church. 

Mr.  Chairman,  before  I  should  expect  a 
Churchman  to  reprove  the  Church  for  the  ex- 
pensive character  of  her  edifices,  I  should  ex- 
pect the  modern  disciple  of  art  to  reprove  Ra- 
phael or  Michael  Angelo  for  the  labor  which 
gave  to  the  world  their  immortal  works.  I 
should  expect  the  Frenchman,  as  he  paces  the 
long  passages  of  the  Louvre,  to  reprove  the 
French  nation  for  the  rich  productions  of  gen- 
ius which  everywhere  adorn  her  walls.  Sir,  if 
there  be  one  thing  which  above  all  others  entitles 
this  glorious  Church  to  consideration  in  this  hour, 
it  is  that  she  seeks  by  her  splendid  edifices  to 
attract  through  physical  forms  that  attention 
from  the  poor  which  is  yielded  to  naught  else. 

If  there  be  one  fundamental  reform  for  which 
she  especially  deserves  praise,  it  is  that  by  which 
she  seeks  to  revive  the  practical  piety  and 
charity  of  the  medioeval  ages;  when  through 
costly  structures,  and  beneath  the  influence  of 
grand  and  solemn  ceremonies,  the  mind  of  the 
poor  and  the  uncultivated  was  by  the  very  attrac- 
tion of  these  material  forms,  led  in.sunsibly  up- 
ward to  nature's  God.  If  this  be  reprehensible, 
I  would  to  God  that  the  church  with  which  I 
am  connected,  should  she  ever  po.ssess  the  abil- 
/  ity,  might  be  guilty  of  the  same  error.  No,  Sir; 
I  do  not  believe  tiiat  the  maguilici^nce  of  the 
structure  is  at  all  in  conflict  with  the  sim))licity 
or  the  sanctity  of  religious  service  ;  but  I  hold 
'  that  it  ratlier  spreads  a  subdued  and  holy  awe 
over  religious  worship. 

Will  it  be  pretended  that  the  poor  do  not  enter 
Trinity?  That  those  who  minister  at  her  altars 
do  not  assiduously  attend  to  their  duties,  year 
after  year,  and  evsry  day  in  the  year  ?    That  the 


Church  is  not  ever  open,  that  the  minister  of 
the  church  is  not  ever  ready,  alike  at  the  Bap- 
tism, the  Marriage  and  the  Funeral;  at  each 
stage  of  moral  want,  where  religious  warning  or 
religious  consolation  is  needed  by  an  ever  erring 
humanity ;  with  the  sick,  the  dying,  and  the 
dead? 

Would  the  Senator  invite  us  to  a  comparison, 
or  I  should  rather  say  a  contrast,  with  her  up- 
town sister  churches,  or  with  Grace  Church, 
that  stands  so  conspicuously  foremost  in  the 
present  contest  as  the  assailant  of  Trinity? 
Behold  her,  then,  standing  in  her  pride;  the  rich 
cariiages  with  their  velvet  cushions,  arrayed  in 
glittering  lines  before  her  doors ;  the  coachman 
with  his  gloved  hands  reining  in  the  prancing 
steeds;  the  footman  in  his  gaudy  livery  swinging 
back  the  door  upon  its  silver  hinges;  the  fair 
communicant  exquisite  even  in  her  devotions, 
gliding  to  the  altar,  bearing  the  'wealth  of  Or- 
miis  and  the  father  Ind'  upoi.  her  lovely  form, 
sweeping  along  the  carpelted  aisle,  the  rustlina; 
silk  mingling  with  the  operatic  strains  that  burst 
upon  the  ear. 

Gorgeous  in  her  riches,  and  more  gorgeous 
still  in  her  splendid  and  polished  worshippers, 
Grace  looks  down  with  ill-concealed  contempt 
on  the  humble  congregation  of  Trinity.  Clos- 
ing her  portals  in  the  sultry  summer  months, 
pastor  and  flock  go  gladly  out  to  recruit  the 
strength  exhausted  in  their  spiritual  labors, 
while  the  faithful  servants  of  Trinity  stand  amid 
summer  heats  and  wintry  blasts  ever  faitnful  at 
their  posts,  comforting  and  supporting  the  sor- 
rowing, the  desolate  and  the  down-trodden. 
Sir!  The  doors  of  calumniated  Trinity,  stigma- 
tised on  this  floor  as  destitute  "of  a  single  scin- 
tilla of  spiritual  feeling,"  have  never  been  closed 
even  for  a  day,  but  from  that  solemn  moment 
eleven  years  since,  when  her  Vestry  piously 
offered  up  their  edifice  to  God,  a  daily  stream  of 
gratitude  and  prayer  has  unceasinly  ascended  to 
the  Gracious  Giver  of  all  Good. 

Mr.  Chairman,  while  I  am  sensible  that  these 
comparisons  in  matters  of  religion  are  or  might 
otherwise  be  reprehensible ,  I  desire  it  to  be  under- 
stood that  we  have  not  invited  them.  Has  not 
Trinity  been  attacked  upon  this  floor?  Has  she  rot 
been  brought  here  by  an  inquisition  instiuted  first 
by  the  Senate,  and  followed  only  by  petitions  to 
save  this  investigation  on  its  very  threshold, 
from  assuming  its  real  character  of  a  Star  cham- 
ber inquisition  ?  Trinity  is  not  the  assailant  in 
this  case ;  but  as  the  guardian  of  this  sacred 
trust,  she  cannot  permit  herself  to  be  disgraced 
and  degraded  as  she  would  be  should  she  sub- 
mit in  silence  to  the  wrongs  which  are  sought 
by  this  controversy,  to  be  imposed  upon  her. — 
She  was  loi  g  silent — she  will  be  silent  no  long-  1 


er.    She  was  dragged,  a  reluctant  and  unoftendj 


iug  pf  rty,  to  the  bar  of  the  Senate  ;   but  whei 
it  is  sought  to  place  her  in  the  position  of 
felon,  it  becomes  her  duty  to  resiiit. 

Let  us  proceed,  then,  with  our  task.  An 
first,  since  the  pay  of  her  clergy  has  been  mad 
the  basis  of  complaint,  let  us  look  at  the  evi 
dence  and  see  if  her  accusers  gain  anything  b; 


17 


23  ] 
I 

27  yio 

20  J 

35 

Confirma- 


the  comparison.  It  appears  from  the  testimony 
of  Dr.  Berrian,  that  her  rector  receives  S3, 500  ; 
that  her  five  assistant  ministers  get  S3,000 ;  that 
her  three  other  a.--sistant  ministers  receive  but 
$1,500  per  annum  ;  making  in  all  for  her  nine 
officiating  clergymen,  the  sum  of  $23,000  ;  while 
the  rectors  of  ^ue  of  the  up-town  churches  that 
appear  as  parties  in  this  controversy  against 
TWnitv,  receive  an  average  of  §4,000  each,  or 
J20,000  in  the  aggregate. 

Next,  as  to  the  baptisms  and  confirmations. — 
A  comparison  with  the  four  Churches  of  St. 
Mark's,  St.  George's,  Ascension  and  Grace  Ch., 
fpr  the  year  1856,  shows  the  following  results: — 
Trinity  Baptisms  433 

Confirmations  176 

St.  Mark's  Baptisms  21  ^ 

Confirmations   | 

St.  George's  Baptisms  36  ^9 

Confirmations   j 

Ascension  Baptisms  42  J 

Confirmations  

Grace  Church — not  reported 

Confirmations  

Excess  of  Trinity — Baptisms  334. 
tions  71. 

The  funerals  at  three  of  these  churches  com- 
pare as  follows,  for  the  year  1S56  : 

At  Trinity   129 

At  St.  George's   6 

At  St.  Mark's  20 

At  Ascension  12 

—  38 

Excess  of  Trinity   91 

These,  Mr.  Chairman,  are  the  figures  ;  and  if 
it  was  worth  while  to  institute  a  comparison  at 
all  in  matters  of  this  kind,  it  was  worth  while 
to  arrive  at  the  facts  now  presented  to  the  Sen- 
ate. This,  indeed,  has  become  doubly  nectssa- 
ly,  since  the  Senator  from  the  22Qd  has  seen  fit, 
in  order  to  sustain  his  argument,  to  quote  only 
such  evideuce  as  would  seem  to  substantiate  the 
positions  he  has  taken,  entirely  ignoring  all  the 
proof  by  which  those  positions  were  successfully 
refuted. 

Again,  on  the  question  whether  Trinity  is  in 
reality  the  church  of  the  Poor,  I  desire  "to  call 
the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  some  facts  set  forth 
in  the  evidence. 

On  page  43  of  the  report,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Berrian 
testifies  as  to  the  general  provisions  for  the  poor  in 
the  Parish,  including  free  burials  in  Trinity  cem- 
etery : 

"  In  addition  to  this.  Trinity  church  corpora- 
tion makes  an  annual  contribution  of  $2,000  to- 
wards the  Communion  fund,  to  supply  the  defi- 
ciencies in  the  otferings  of  the  people,  on  account 
of  the  altered  condition  of  things  in  the  parish. 
It  appropriates  nearly  §1,600  a  year  to  lay  agents, 
whose  business  it  is  to  give  needful  assistance  to 
the  emigrant,  on  his  arrival  at  '.his  port ;  to  visit 
the  suffering  poor,  and  ascertain  their  fitness  for 
bounty  of  the  Church,  and  to  search  out  the 
iffiorant,  for  religious  instruction.  It  expends 
aiout  $1,000  a  year,  on  the  Parish  school  of  St. 


Paul's  chapel,  and  it  likewise  empowers  the 
Rector,  with  unlimited  disci etion,  to  give  orders 
for  the  free  burial  of  the  poor,  of  our  own  con- 
gregations, as  well  as  of  others,  a  privilege  which 
is  very  frequently  sought,  and  in  almost  all 
ca.«es,  cheertully  granted  alike  to  all." 

Again,  in  relation  to  the  pews  and  sittings 
provided  for  the  poor  in  Trinity,  on  page  5  uf 
the  Report  Dr.  Haight,  says:  "it  is  comijuted 
there  are  from  1200  to  1300  free  sittings  in  the 
Parish." 

Mr.  Verplanck  states  page  93,  that  the  actual 
receipts  from  the  pews  of  Trinity,  for  the  year 
ending  in  May  1856,  was  only  $157. 

"At  St.  Paul's  the  sum  collected  was  §280,  for 
the  same  period.  I  will  add  that  my  personal 
knowledge  is  of  Trinity,  where  I  attend  with 
considerable  regularity  about  half  the  year.  The 
operation  of  St.  Paul's  re.senibles  that  of  Trinity." 

Further,  in  a  reply  published  in  a  New  York 
paper  to  an  enquiry,  the  Sexton  of  Trinity 
Church  states,  that  out  of  139  pews  in  Trinity 
only  11  are  occupied  by  those  who  lease  or 
own  them.  So  that  there  are  128  pews  besides  the 
sittings  in  the  aisles,  to  which  he  and  the  As- 
sistant Sextons  feel  at  perfect  liberty  to  show 
strangers  poor  cr  rich,  and  many  of  these  are 
constantly  occupied  by  the  poor. 

In  regard  to  the  Congregation  at  Trinity,  Dr. 
Haight  says : 

"  The  congregation  at  Trinity  church  is  large, 
and  composed  in  great  part  of  strangers,  transient 
residents,  young  men,  clerks,  etc.,  and  the  poor, 
upon  none  of  whom  is  any  tax,  in  the  form  of 
pew  rent  or  otherwise,  laid,  for  the  support  of 
the  ministrations  of  the  church.  Of  the  charac- 
ter and  number  of  the  congregations  in  the 
three  chapels — St.  Paul's,  St.  John's,  and  Trini- 
ty chapel,  I  cannot  speak  with  as  much  cer- 
tainty. The  congregation  at  St.  Paul's  appears 
to  me  to  be  very  similar  to  that  of  Trinity,  and 
constantly  becoming  more  so.  In  St.  John's 
chapel,  an  arrangement  has  been  made,  I  be- 
lieve, by  which  a  certain  number  of  free  sittings 
have  been  provided,  with  special  reference  to  the 
poor  ;  and  in  Trinity  chapel  there  are  Irom  one 
hundred  and  fifty  to  two  hundred  free  sittings, 
in  the  best  parts  of  the  church,  which  are  gene- 
rally well  filled. 

If  the  statement  referred  to,  be  true,  it  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at,  inasmuch  as  two  of  the  con- 
gregations of  Trinity  Parish  are  now  mainly 
composed  of  strangers,  transient  persons,  the 
working  classes  and  the  poor ;  while  even  in 
regard  to  the  other  two  congregations  it  may  be 
affirmed,  that  neither  of  them,  not  even  that  of 
Trinity  Chapel,  compares  in  point  of  individual 
wealth  with  several  other  independent  congre- 
gations. There  has  been  a  very  great  change,  of 
late  years,  in  the  down  town  cong-reaations,  in 
consequence  of  the  removal  of  persons  of  sub- 
stance, to  the  upper  parts  of  the  city.  I  can  see 
no  connection  whatever,  between  the  alleged 
smallness  of  the  contributions  of  the  members  of 
Trinity  Parish  and  the  administration  of  the  af- 
fairs of  the  Corporation.  If  there  be  a  fault  in 
the  matter,  it  cannot  justly,  be  laid  to  the  charge 


18 


of  the  Vestry ;  it  must  rest  witli  the  clergy  and 
the  people." 

Dr.  Vinton  thus  testifies  as  to  the  character 
of  the  consre^ations  of  St.  Paul's.  His  testi- 
mony will  be  found  on  page  CO. 

"At  St.  Paul's  chapel,  the  only  one  I  speak  of, 
the  congreg;ation  is  composed  of  three  classes: 
first,  the  old  families  retaining  their  seats;  se- 
cond, strangers  from  the  hotels,  clerks  and 
sojourners  of  the  city,  engaged,  for  the  most 
part,  in  mercantile  business;  third,  mechanics, 
artisans,  porters,  washer-women,  huckster.',  and 
miscellaneous  poor,  who  obtain  their  living  by 
daily  labor."' 

As  to  arrangements  for  Parochial  Work,  p. 
60,  61,  he  says: 

"  There  is  a  parish  school  employing  two 
teachers  with  voluntary  assistance  from  the 
women  of  the  parish,  to  teach  poor  children 
the  principles  of  religion,  as  professed  by  the 
Episcopal  church;  ihe  elements  of  common 
learning;  sewing  to  the  e.xtent  of  each  making 
their  own  clothing,  and  laboring  to  get  their 
own  living,  and  al>o  instructions  in  church 
music.  The  number  of  children  is  80  or  tOO; 
also  a  Sunday  school  including  other  children  of 
the  parish,  taught  by  between  twenty  and  thirty 
teachers  of  both  se.xes;  two  classes  for  advanced 
scholars;  also  a  weekly  Bible  class  for  clerks  and 
young  men.  The  public  services  in  the  chapel 
are  every  Sunday  morning  and  afternoon,  five 
months  in  the  year,  and  a  night  service  additional 
for  seven  months.  I  ojficiate  statedly  only  in 
morning  service,  the  other  parts  of  the  day  being 
employed  in  other  parts  of  the  )  arish.  at  the 
church  or  chapel,  and  therefore,  can  speak  only 
of  the  congregation  in  the  morning.  Then  it  is 
large,  as  it  is  at  all  the  chapels ;  the  communion's 
offerings  liberal,  as  shown  from  the  fact  that  on 
Easter  day  they  amounted  to  the  sum  of  $270, 
and  on  Christinas  day  to  S180,  or  thereabouts. 
At  other  times  the  contributions  are  generous. 
There  is  established  in  connection  with  St.  Paul's 
chapel,  a  mission  house,  open  from  9  A.  M.  to 
2  P.  M.,  where  one  of  the  assistant  ministers  is 
present  every  day.  There  are  two  laymen  em- 
ployed to  inquire  into  and  exatnine  every  ap- 
plication for  aid,  and  report  the  same  to  the 
office.  The  case  is  recorded  in  a  book  kept  for 
that  purpose,  and  a  record  made  of  all  that  was 
done  in  each  case.  The  applicants  are  from 
vestrymen  wanting  clergymen,  clergymen  want- 
ing parishes,  poor  wanting  help,  the  sick  medi- 
cine, the  emigrant  advice,  i§-c.  The  office  is  in 
communication  with  most  ol  the  extant  institu- 
tions of  charity  in  the  city  of  New  York.  Cards 
are  placed  in  hotels  and  eating  houtes,  inviting 
guests,  in  my  own  name,  to  attend  St.  Paul's 
chapel,  where  free  sittings  are  provided.  We 
have  received  letters  from  persons  we  have 
aided, expressing  their  thanks  to  Trinity  Church." 

I  cannot  leave  this  branch  of  the  sutijec-t  with- 
out alluding  to  the  fact  that  the  Hon.  Senator 
from  the  22nd,  even  while  making  the  remarka- 
bly declaration  that  "  Trinilij  church  has  not 
one  icintilla  of  spiritual  feeling  I"  was  com- 


pelled most  unwillingly  as  it  seemed  to  me,  and 
probably  only  from  the  conviction  that  it  waa 
necessary  to  break  the  force  o*'  what  must  be 
admitted  to  have  been  a  most  intemperate  and 
unjustifiable  expression,  at  a  subsequent  stage  of 
the  discussion,  to  admit  that  those  who  minister 
at  Trinity's  altars  are  without  blame.  But  it  is 
this  vestry — this  corporation,  he  says,  which 
he  would  brand  and  stigmatize  as  criminal. 
And  who  constitute  this  vestry?  Twenty-two 
gentlemen  as  far  above  reproach  as  any  twenty- 
tsvo  that  could  be  selected  within  the  great 
metropolis.  And  why  are  they  denounced  ? 
Because  they  are  an  old  fashioned  set  like  our 
Hamiltons,  Jays  and  Kings.  Because  they  will 
not  sell  or  di.sturb  the  cemeteries  of  Trinity  im- 
piovidently,  or  prematurely  sell  the  property  of 
the  church. 

One  of  these  vestrymen  is  Gulian  C.  Verplanck. 
Is  he  to  be  impeached  upon  this  floor  ?  Who 
that  knows  Mr.  Verplanck  does  not  know  him 
as  a  man  of  most  unostentatious  manner  and 
liberal  life  ;  as  one  vrho  has  devott  d  twenty  years 
of  his  life  to  the  emigrant,  for  whose  good,  as  a 
Commissioner  of  Emigration,  he  has  constantly 
labored  ?  And  is  he  one  whom  the  Senator  from 
the  22od  would  impeach  ? 

There  is  Gen.  Dix,  too  ;  a  name  not  unknown 
in  the  State  of  New  York  ;  he  also  is  a  member 
of  this  Ve:try.  A  man  of  letters,  distinguished 
among  his  compeers,  and  who  has  already  achie- 
ved an  exalted  place  in  Stateamanship, — is  it  he, 
that  the  Senator  from  the  22d  would  impeach  t 

Aye,but  will  the  Senator  say,  'these  are  not  the 
men — I  do  not  impeach  these.'  Then  I  reply 
that  they  demand,  and  their  fellow  Vestrymen 
demand, that  those  who  he  does  intend  to  impeach 
be  .shall  impeach  bv  name,  and  not  attempt  thu3 
covertly  to  cast  a  stigma  upon  any  who  in  tem- 
poral or  spiritual  affuirs  administer  to  the  church. 

The  Hon.  Senator  would  not  disturb  the 
clergy  ;  the  clergy  who  he  admits  have  been  so 
constant  in  their  ministrations  at  the  altar,  and 
in  their  attendance  at  the  homes  of  the  poor,  al- 
though by  the  provisions  of  his  bill  he  would  let 
loose  upon  these  pious  and  devotea  men  an  un- 
bridled power  which  would  drive  them  out  to 
starve.  But  he  only  desires  to  disturb  the  Ves- 
try— the  corporation — and  liis  charges  are  only 
levelled  at  that  corporation,  who,  in  the  ex- 
uberance of  what  is  itself  au  insane  frenzy,  the 
Hon.  Senator  declares,  are  "not  fit  for  a  mad- 
house." Let  me  tell  that  Senator,  that  in  this 
attempted  sarcasm  he  utters  but  the  truth  in  say- 
ing, that  a  Vestry  who  tlxrough  nearly  ItiO  years 
have  administered  tlie  vast  properties  of  this 
church  without  the  occurrence  of  a  single  mal- 
versation in  office,  and  without  the  loss  of  a  single 
dollar  to  tlie  revenues  of  the  church,  and  under 
whose  prudential  management  this  property  has 
grown  from  an  inconsiderable  farm,  to  its  pre< 
sent  value  of  four  to  six  millions  of  dollars — an 
not  fit  for  a  madhouse. 

And  at  this  point  of  the  debate,  Mr.  Chair 
man,  I  desire  to  introdme  to  the  Senate  eigl 
gentlemen,  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  Yorl 
who  seem  to  have  taken  upon  themselves  tl 


19 


exclusive  office  of  asserting  the  claims  of  their 
fiftj  thousand  fellow  Episoopali.ins.  As  members 
of  a  revolutiouary  committee,  or  commissioners 
:  of  confiscation,  tUey  seem  already  to  have  as- 
sumed the  office  of  distributing  the  spoils.  For 
what  have  we  on  our  tables,  but  a  proclamation 
signed  by  Mt^ssrs.  Bradish,  Miuturn,  Brown, 
Wolf,  Cambreleng,  Cooley,  Jay,  and  Winston, 
proclaimiug  to  the  rural  districts  that  they  are 
to  be  admitted  to  share  in  tlie  spoliation?  To 
be  sure  the  property  is  claimed  on  the  legal  pre- 
tence of  its  belonging  to  the  Episcopalian  iiihdb- 
itants  of  the  city,  and  not  to  the  congregation  of 
the  chuich,  but  nevertheless  t'uis  self  elected 
Vestry  assure  the  country  churches  that  without 
a  particle  of  legal  right  they  shall  nevertheless 
have  a  part — assuring  them  that  so  rich  is  the 
prize  that  it  will  yield  "ENOUGH  FOR  ALL." 

Under  the  same  assurance  the  pious  fear?  of 
those  who  love  the  ancient  and  time-honored 
walls  of  Trinity,  and  its  chapels,  are  also  lulled 
to  sleep.  There  being  ^'enough  for  all,"  there 
will  be  no  necessity,  at  hast  for  the  present,  of 
pulling  down  the  sacred  edillces,  or  of  cutting 
up  its  cemeteries  into  lots  for  stores.  Nay  fur- 
ther, the  new  regime  may  graciously  permit,  at 
least  for  the  present,  the  pious  and  devoted  ser- 
vants of  G^d,  to  continue  in  the  parish  their 
blessed  miuistratious  to  the  poor  and  wretched. 
No— no — they  will  not  yet  disturb  the  parochial 
officers.  They  will  not  yet  carry  off  the  ancient  and 
massive  sacramental  vessels,  r.or  remove  the 
communion  plates  from  the  altar,  nor  silence  the 
peal  of  the  organ,  nor  even  interfere  to  check  the 
too  zealous  churchmanship  of  its  ministers. 

No  sir,  as  long  as  thern  shall  continue  to  be 
"enough  for  all,"  the  parish  governed  by  a  for- 
eign vestry,  strangers  to  its  wants,  and  feelings, 
and  necessities,  will  be  allowed  to  drag  out  a  de- 
pendent and  subordinate  existence,  without  le- 
C'll  independence  or  spiritual  equality,  but  sunk 
'ow  the  level  of  the  humblest  congregation  in 
the  rudest  log  cabin  in  our  western  wilds.  Yes, 
We  shall  be  permitted  to  live,  subject  to  the  will 
of  these  eight  Christian  gentlemen,  who  ask  no- 
thing for  tus  present,  but  to  relieve  us  of  all  our 
productive  property.  They  might  even  consent  to 
admit  us  in  some  new  form,  as  a  partner,  to  share 
our  former  possessions  with  their  new  proprietors. 

Sir,  the  serene  complacency  with  which 
these  gentlemen  utter  the  terrific  and  ominous 
words,  "enough  for  all,"  tills  me  with  alarm 
and  horror.  It  is  the  languags^  of  Jack  Cade 
and  Ledru  Roliin,  and  has  been  the  very  watch- 
word and  rallying  cry  of  Agrarianism  and  Jaco 
binism  throughout  the  whole  dark  history  of 
human  cupidity  and  injustice.  The  attacks  on 
the  nobles  of  France,  scattering  countless  mil- 
lions as  the  prey  of  lawless  rapacity,  had  for 
their  justification  "enough  for  all."  If  such  be 
the  morals  of  this  Senats,  why  not  wait  at  once 
on  Mr.  Astor,  and  after  assuring  him  that  we 
do  not  desire  to  dispossess  him,  should  modest- 
ly request  to  be  taken  in  as  partners  in  his  vast 
property  on  the  ground  that  there  is  "enough  for  . 
all  t  " 


Bat  this  self-elected  Vestry  and  their  con- 
federates in  one  thing  at  least,  have  given 
evidence  of  their  sagacity.  They  have  chosen 
a  profitable  time  to  enter  upon  possession;  a 
time  wheu  two  long-  leases  are  about  to  expire 
— one  in  18C)4  and  one  in  1S6C — when  at  least 
two  millions  of  property  would  fall  at  once 
into  their  liandsfor  distribution. 

Sir !  Let  iue  ask  where  all  this  is  to  end  ?  Can 
we  not  see  and  ftel  that  these  human  passions,  if 
now  unbridled,  will  inevitably  in  obedience  to 
moral, no  less  than  physical  laws,  gravitate  on-on- 
on,  to  tl  e  bottom  ?  To-day  the  lirst  two  millions 
are  difidtd  up.  Then  comes  the  next  division, 
and  the  next ;  and  alas  lor  the  Church — alas  for 
the  country  when  the  spoliation  of  this  ancient 
and  honored  corporation  shall  form  but  the  first  in 
that  dark  catalogue  of  legislative  aggressions, 
which  are  to  overthrow  law,  religion  and  social 
order. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  Hon.  Senator  does  not 
speak  for  the  dead  but  for  the  future  generations 
of  mankind.  If  this  be  so,  why  not  Itt  this  vast 
church  property  remain  for  Wif  benefit  of  the 
future  generations  of  mankind,  and  not  disperse 
it  to  the  four  winds  of  Heaven.  Why  does  he 
seek  by  his  bill  to  deprive  this  ancient  and 
loyal  corporation  of  its  independence  ?  Why 
does  he  seek  thus  shamefully  to  degrade  it  ?  It 
will  be  governed  no  longer  by  its  own  honor- 
ably elected  vestry  ;  but  by  the  revolutiona.'y 
Committee  thrown  upon  it  by  this  wave  of 
Jacobinism  that  now  threatens  the  destruction 
of  the  American  Church.  Sirl  the  whole  Chris- 
tian world  will  be  shaken  and  shocked  bj  her 
down  tall. 

And  again,  I  ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  why  should 
this  wrong  be  done  ?  Trinity  is  rich,  bat  her 
riches  are  of  legitimate  growth.  She  has  but 
shared  in  the  gt>neral  prosp-rity  which  the 
statesmanship^and  genius  of  Clinton  secured  to 
the  metropolis  of  the  Empire  State,  by  connect- 
ing the  river  with  the  Lake,  and  throwi.-'g  open 
to  us  the  we.-tern  wilds.  You  might  as  well 
complain  of  the  quiet  Dutchmen  whose  cabbage 
gardens  are  now  covered  with  palaces,  as  to 
blame  Trinity  because,  beneath  a  wise  guardian- 
ship, her  once  humble  possessions  have  swelled 
into  great  and  coveted  wealth. 

But  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  are  fur- 
ther reproached  for  untruly  returning  the  value 
of  tl  eir  real  estate.  It  will  be  recollected  that 
their  vestry  consists  of  twenty-two  individuals, 
widely  dilfering  in  views  and  pursuits  and  means 
of  knowledge.  It  is  a  moral  vmpossihility  that  all 
could  unite  in  the  same  valuation.  There  was 
no  common  standard  of  value  to  which  they 
could  possibly  refer,  except  the  official  valuation 
of  the  city  assessors  who  are  sworn  to  value  truly 
all  the  lands  in  the  city.  If  it  be  said  that  the 
assessors  never  do  in  fact  value  lands  at  their 
full  market  value,  it  may  also  be  said  that  the 
fact  is  perfectly  notorious  to  every  one — and  that 
every  one  is  equally  competent  to  add  such  pro- 
portionate rates  to  the  assessed  value,  as  expe- 
rience may  suggest.     The  only  statement  really 


20 


important  for  tlie  Churcli  to  return,  and  solely 
within  their  knowledge,  was  a  true  exhibit  of  the 
locatiim  and  size  of  their  lota — that  being  given, 
every  one  is  furnished  at  once  with  the  means  of 
valuing  each  separate  lot.  The  Church  have 
practised  no  deception  in  the  matter.  On  the 
contrary  they  explicitly  state  in  their  retui'n  to 
the  Legislature  of  1856,  (Senate  Doc.  No  45,  page 
6,  line  10,)  that  they  return  the  value  "  as  as- 
"  sessed  in  1855  by  the  officers  of  the  city  for 
"  the  purpose  of  taxation."  If  this  return  does 
not  correspond  with  the  assessor's  books,  then 
and  then  only  will  the  Church  deserve  censure. 

The  only  object  of  the  legitimate  inquiry  was  to 
ascertain,  not  the  speculative  or  estimated  value 
of  the  land  held  by  the  church,  but  what  is  its 
actual  income — in  a  word,  what  are  the  existing 
pecuniary  means  of  the  Vestry,  to  sustain  the 
sacred  cause  committed  to  their  charge.  The 
rent  of  a  lot  is  a  thing  certain  to  be  known  ;  the 
value  of  a  lot  cannot  be  certain.  The  only  car- 
dinal fact  necessary  to  be  known  and  truly  re- 
turned is  the  actual  pecuniary  income  of  the 
land  ;  and  that  they  state  precisely,  in  dollars 
and  cents,  as  being  671,301.97.  If  that  fact  be 
untruly  stated,  then  and  then  only  are  the  church 
deserving  of  censure.  They  also  return  the 
amount  of  their  debt  as  being  $648,913,  and  that 
the  interest  is  641,895.  And  next  as  to  the  re- 
turn of  the  number  of  corporators.  The  church 
return  that  there  are  213  pew  holders.  It  now 
turns  out  by  close  scrutiny,  that  a  few  of  them 
are  dead,  and  that  some  have  removed  from  the 
parish.  But  of  what  practical  importance  is  it, 
whether  the  corporators  are  213,  or  113,  or  50  ? 

]f  the  corporators  legally  own  the  property,  it 
matters  not  whether  their  number  be  great  or 
small.  The  rights  of  50  are  just  as  sacred  as  the 
rights  of  500. 

And  so  of  the  communicants ;  it  matters  not 
whether  the  number  be  92  or  52.  The  question 
is  have  they  the  legal  right  ? 

If  it  be  said  that  the  number  is  too  small  to 
control  so  large  a  fund,  let  it  be  remembered 
that  every  man  of  full  age  who  chooses,  can  be- 
come a  communicant  and  a  corporator.  He 
needs  only  to  take  the  communion  and  then  to 
hand  his  name  and  residence  to  the  minister. — 
Ko  man  has  ever  yet  been  refused  or  debarred 
the  privilege  ;  it  is  now  open,  wide  open  to  every 
Episcopalian  in  the  city. 

The  secret  is,  that  the  communicants  are  satis- 
fied with  the  church  and  its  management  and 
although  they  are  now  eleven  hundred  in  number, 
only  92  (or  as  is  asserted  only  52)  have  thought 
fit  to  take  the  trouble  to  qualify  themselves  as 
corporators.  Is  either  the  church  or  the  vestry 
to  blame  for  this  ? 

The  Senator  from  the  22d,  says  that  this  cor- 
poration, though  amenable  to  the  Legislature 
like  any  railroad,  insurance  or  other  corporation, 
set  themselves  above  the  law,  defy  the  Senate, 
and  stalking  into  the  Legislature,  shelter  them- 
selves behind  a  grant  from  the  British  Crown.  I 
would  ask  by  what  other  right  he  would  come 
down,  like  the  Goths  and  Vandals,  to  take  po3- 
sessioa  of  this  Rome  of  the  Episcopal  Church  ? 


Would  it  not  be  under  the  grant  of  the  same 
King  and  Queen  by  whom  this  royal  bounty  was 
originally  dispensed  to  Trinity  ?  For  what  else 
but  to  assert  a  pretended  right  of  the  claimants 
under  that  very  grant,  is  the  present  law  de- 
signed 1 

Sir,  it  is  not  the  office  of  a  wise  or  paternal 
legislature,  to  pass  a  law  like  the  present  which 
must  inevitably  keep  open  lor  years  a  bitter 
fountain,  not  only  of  litigation  in  the  courts  of 
justice,  but  of  discord  in  the  heart  of  society, 
permanently  dividing,  as  it  has  already  begun 
to  divide,  church  from  church,  family  from 
family,  and  triend  from  friend. 

Already  the  newspapers  teem  with  angry  re- 
criminations, kindling  the  basest  passions  of 
our  nature.  Both  clergy  and  laity  are  rapidly 
rushing  into  the  heated  conflict.  Is  it  wise  to 
foster  this  state  of  public  fetling  ?  To  add  fuel 
to  the  flame  ?  May  not  a  a  prudent  Senate  safely 
decide  to  banish  this  exciting  topic  from  the 
Houses  of  the  Legislature,  and  send  the  parties  to 
the  Courts  of  Justice,  where  only,  their  contio- 
versy  properly  belongs  ? 

This  controversy  is  purely  judicial  in  Its  na- 
ture. The  Senator  from  Onondaga  admitted 
this,  when  he  said  that  the  great  mass  of  the 
evidence  before  us  bearing  upon  the  manage- 
ment of  the  corporation  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  question  ;  that  it  was  not  a  question  of  fact, 
but  of  law.  Why  then  should  the  Senate  usurp 
the  judicial  ermine  ?  Do  not  their  proper  legis- 
lative functions  sufficiently  engross  their  atten- 
tion, that  they  must  spend  precious  days  and  i 
weeks  in  listening  to  arguments  proper  oniy 
for  the  calm  and  sober  atmosphere  of  a  Court  of 
Justice  ? 

The  principles  involved  in  this  discussion  call 
for  profound  and  deliberate  investigation,  which 
only  can  be  secured  in  the  tribunals  constitution- 
ally provided  for  the  purpose. 

But  if  it  be  proper  to  convert  the  Hall  of  Le- 
gislation into  a  judicial  forum,  then  let  me 
say  that  the  argument  of  the  legal  principles 
involved  in  this  matter,  has  not  even  commenc- 
ed. After  three  days  debate,  the  legal  discussion 
has  not  even  approached  its  threshold. 

For  does  the  gentleman  from  the  22d  really 
delude  himself,  still  more,  does  he  seek  to  delude 
MS  with  the  idea  that  he  has  arg  iifd,still  more  that 
he  has  established  the  fundamental  legal  proposi- 
tion, that  the  Kpiscopal  inhabitants  of  New  York, 
are  all  alike,  entitled  to  the  property  of  Trinity 
Church  ?  Has  he  stirred  a  single  step  in  the 
way  of  removing,  the  plain  palpable  legal  obsta- 
cles which  prevent  such  a  conclusion  ?  Has  he 
uttered  a  word  to  gainsay  the  arguments,  clear  as 
noonday,  coming  fiom  the  ablest  legal  intellects 
that  the  State  has  ever  possessed,  conclusively 
limiting  the  said  "inhabitants"  to  those  who 
legally  congregate  within  the  walla  of  Trinity, 
and  are  duly  admitted  into  its  "congregation  "  bj 
its  legitimate  authorities? 

I  intend  not  to  discuss  this  nor  any  of  the  lega 
.  questions  involved,  intending  and  agreeing  t< 
leave  them  to  friends  in  this  body  abler,aud  mon 
fully  prepared  than  myself.    I  merely  mean  t( 


21 


.Ter  that  the  genfleman  from  the  22d  has  shrnnk 
rom  their  discussion,  or  rather  that  he  has  hold- 
y  cut  the  knot,  by  unscrupulosly  assuming  the 
rery  point  at  issue,  and  thus  cleaning  all  legal 
)b5taele8  at  a  bound.  I  deny  wholly  and  utterly 
hat  the  Inhabitants  of  the  city  not  members  of 
he  congregation  have  any  rights  whatever  in 
his  matter,  and  before  tlie  gentleman  stirs  an- 
ther step  in  this  debate  he  is  bound  affirmative- 
i-  to  prove  that  they  have.  For  my  own  part, 
?ir,  I  believe  that  law — that  right — that  conse- 
orated  justice  is  on  the  side  of  the  church. 

The  Senator  from  the  22J,  has  funher  found 
fault  with  Trinity  for  her  gifts.  He  complains 
that  they  are  bestowed  upon  the  High  Church 
rather  than  upon  the  Low.  lie  has  taken  the 
trouble  to  examine  the  remonstrances  that  lie 
upon  our  table,  and  he  finds  that  35  are  from 
High  Churches  and  6  from  Low.  Now  what 
care  I,  who  am  neither  High  nor  Low  Church- 
man, about  these  dogmas  ;  and  what  right  has 
the  Hon.  Senator  to  introduce  them  into  this 
body  to  influence  my  opinions  ?  I  can  only  say 
in  my  judgment  that  it  is  evidence  of  sound 
churcbmanship  in  the  country,  and  when  the 
city  shall  have  become  as  sound,  these  quarrels 
will  perhaps  have  ceased.  I  have  received  and 
presented  petitions  from  every  Episcopal  Church 
in  Buffalo,  and  if  they  are  all  High  Churches, 
then  must  I  regard  the  High  Church  as  a  noble 
church  ;  for  well  I  know  that  they  are  noble 
churches — that  their  church  Wardens  and  Ves- 
trymen are  noble  men,  and  that  their  clergymen, 
to  my  feeble  judgment,  seem  to  be  worthy  minis- 
ters in  the  service  of  their  God. 

The  Senator  complains,  too,  that  Trinity  has 
done  but  little  or  nothing  for  the  cause  of  educa- 
tion. On  the  other  hand  I  contend  that  sound 
learning  has  found  in  her  a  constant  benefactor. 
Did  she  not  at  an  early  period  give  to  Columbia 
College,  ninety  valuable  lots,  worth  at  the  pre- 
sent hour  full  three  millions  of  dollars,  and 
making  that  College  the  most  richly  endowed 
of  any  on  this  continent  ?  And  whence 
proceed  those  shadows  that  at  evening  sunset 
rest  upon  the  bosom  of  Seneca  Lake?  Are  they 
not  from  the  turrets  of  Hobart  Free  College, 
as  I  believe  the  only  Free  Col'ege  in  the 
State,  and  was  not  she,  too,  endowed  by  Trinity? 
Has  she  not  her  parish  charities  for  the  purpose 
of  education  ;  her  Industrial  schools  with  their 
thousand  scholars  ?  And  yet  she,  forsooth, 
has  done  little  or  nothing  for  the  cause  of  edu- 
cation ! 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  wish  to  detain 
the  Senate  any  longer  by  discussing  facts,  which 
the  Senator  admits  have  very  little  to  do  with 
the  bill  before  us.  Nor,  as  I  have  said,  is  it  my 
desire  or  intention  to  touch  upon  the  legal  points 
involved  in  this  question.  I  will  but  pause 
to  say  that  in  any  controversy  involving  real 
estate,  ancient  possession  must  amount  to  some- 
thing. In  the  present  instance,  we  find  the  church 
in  the  quiet,  undisturbed  possession  of  her 
property  for  more  than  150  years ;  and 
this  possessory  title  we  hold  to  he  quite  as 
good,  as  the  simple  assertion  of  the  Senator  that 


it  is  owned  by  others.  It  is  not  the  business  of  the 
State  to  disturb  old  titles.  It  is  not  the  right  of  tbe 
individual  to  do  so.  "Cursed  be  he  that  re- 
moveth  his  neighbor's  land  mark."  But  if  any 
supposed  corporator  of  Trinity  thinks  himself 
deprived  of  his  legitimate  suffrage,  let  him  go 
and  offer  his  vote,  and  if  denied,  let  him,  thro' 
a  mamdamus,  make  his  appeal  to  the  law.  The 
act  of  1814  does  not  debar  him  from  any  legal 
right.  No,  Sir  ;  and  no  person  knows  this  fact 
better  than  the  assailants  of  Trinity.  They  do 
not  need  the  law  they  seek,  but  their  real  and 
only  object  in  the  present  inquisitorial  proceed- 
ing is  to  throw  obloquy  upon  the  corporation, 
poison  public  sentiment,  and  excite  popular  pre- 
judice which  is  always  easily  turned  against 
wealth  in  its  aggregate  form,  in  order  in  this  way 
to  set  in  motion  a  current  which  they  think 
will  be  of  service  to  them  in  the  courts  of  justice. 

I  say  Sir,  that  it  is  a  most  unworthy  degrada- 
tion for  this  Senate  to  become  a, partktps  criminit 
to  such  a  scheme  ;  and  I  also  affirm  that  there 
is  nothing  in  any  hasty  or  testy  word  or  chance 
expression  happening  to  drop  trom  a  single  Ves- 
tryman, which  any  Committee  of  the  body 
should  condescend  to  embalm,  thereby  becoming 
the  tale-bearer  of  human  or  christian  infirmities, 
or  which  should  justly  expose  tbe  body  at  large 
to  the  merciless  and  indiscriminate  severity 
now  sought  at  the  hands  of  the  State. 

Nor  ought  the  State  to  lend  any  aid  in  dis- 
gracing the  church,  by  opening  the  door  for 
scenes  of  turbulence  at  her  elections.  For  is 
it  not  evident  that  if  this  bill  passes,  several 
thousand  voters,  all  stimulated  by  religious 
strife,  will  be  yearly  callei  to  congregate  within 
the  ancient  walls  of  Trinity,  re-enacting  the 
tumult  and  violence  and  riot  of  a  6th  Ward  elec- 
tion ?  At  a  game  in  which  six  milllions  of  dol- 
lars is  at  stake,  think  you  there  will  he  wanting 
desperate  players  ?  that  decency  or  decorum 
will  rule  the  hour?  And  what  wiil  be  the  pre- 
liminary spectacle  within  the  walls  of  the  fifty 
other  churches  of  the  city,  throughout  the  sol- 
emn ecc'esiastical  season  ot  Lent,  next  preced- 
ing the  Easter  election  ?  Will  not  the  commu- 
nion tables  of  those  churches,  each  zealously 
preparing  its  band  for  the  coming  conflict,  be 
thronged  by  crowds  assuming  for  the  occasion 
the  mask  of  piety  and  faith,  atd  by  that  im- 
pious mockery  qualifying  themselves  to  vote? 
And  in  a  commonalty  where  Mammon  is  the 
God,  will  voters  such  as  these  possess  no  money 
value,  command  no  market  price  ?  And  when 
cupidity  has  won  the  prize  and  wrested  it 
from  the  bosom  of  the  church,  think  you  not 
that  the  jeer  of  Wall  street,  mingling  with  the 
scoff  of  the  infldel  world,  will  rise  as  a  stench  in 
the  nostrils  ? 

Mr  Chairman,  these  sickening  and  disgraceful 
scenes  will  never  cease  until  every  inch  of  the 
ancient  domain  of  Trinity  outside  of  its  churches 
shall  have  been  squandered.  And  how  long 
after  that  event,  think  you,  will  Trinity  church- 
yard and  St.  Paul's  churchyard  survive  ?  Will 
they  too,  not  fall  victims  to  this  rabid  rage  t 
Shall  we  not  see  fresh  swarms  of  yet  more  raven- 


22 


ous  reformers  smelling  out  with  keen,  unerring 
scent,  the  money  value  l^ing  dormant  in  the 
grave  ? 

Better  by  far  for  the  honour  of  the  Christian 
world  and  the  glory  of  God,  that  church  and 
chapel  aud  munumental  tomb  aud  storied  urn 
were  all  wrappad  at  once  ia  one  common  con- 
flagration ! 

But  in  my  present  health,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
must  speak  no  longer.  I  well  may  pause — for  an 
oratoi  "  mute  but  potent,"  aud  more  impressive 
far  than  the  granite  shaft  of  Bunker  Hill,  now 
stands  silently  before  you,  pleading  not  for  itself 
but  for  the  slate,  btseechiog  the  Senate  not  to  in- 
flict this  stigma  on  its  hitherto  uutarnishied  fame. 

History  too,  is  standing  here, — looking  ear- 
nestly on  to  tell  the  tale  of  Law  and  Right 
struggling  with  Passion  and  Power, — to  record 
our  decree, — wliether  this  venerable  church  is  to 
stand  an  enduring  monument  of  public  faith  aud 
constitutional  loyalty,  or  shall  now  be  upioot- 
ed  and  scattered  to  the  winds,  to  satisfy  a  wild, 
unscrupulous,  unreasoning  fanaticism. 

But  destroy  the  sacred  temple  as  you  may, 
the  act  will  live  forever  inburniug  unextinguiiha- 
ble  shame.  Ruthless  power  m^y  hurl  down 
buttress  and  pinnacle  and  spire,  but  a  dark  fijul 
blot  will  remain,  lasting  as  time,  that  all  the  wa- 
ters of  the  multitudinous  ocean  cannot  wash  out. 

IN  SENATE  March  28. 

At  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Wadsworth's  re- 
marks, Mr.  Brooks  said: 

Mr.  Chairman  :  1  do  not  propose  at  this  time 
to  go  into  the  discussion  of  the  bill  now  under 
consideration,  but  shall  content  myself  with 
now  offering  a  substitute,  reserving  to  myself 
the  right  at  some  future  day,  to  occupy  as  brief 
time  as  possible  in  examining  the  merits  of  this 
bill  otferei  by  the  Special  Committee. 

The  substitute  was  read.    It  is  as  follows: 

Section  1.  The  (Church  Wardens  and  Vestry- 
men of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of  New  York 
shall  hereafter  be  chosen  as  follows: 

One  of  said  church  wardens  and  ten  of  said 
vestrymen  shall  be  chosen  by  the  pew  holders 
and  communioanfs  of  said  Trinity  Church,  and 
its  chapels  entitled  to  v<rte  under  the  second 
section  of  the  act  entilled,  "An  act  to  alter  the 
name  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in 
New  York,  and  for  other  purpose.*,"  passed 
January  25,  1814.  The  other  Church  Warden 
and  the  remaining  ten  of  said  Vestrymen  shall 
be  chosen  by  other  Protestant  Episcopal  churches 
in  said  city,  now  or  hereafter  in  union  with  the 
diocese  of  N'-w  York ;  for  which  purpose  the 
respective  vestries  of  said  churches  shall,  yearly, 
on  or  before  the  first  day  of  March,  select  one 
of  their  body,  by  a  written  act  to  be  signed  by  a 
majority  of  said  vestry,  and  duly  certified  by 
its  clerk.  The  persons  so  to  be  selected  shall 
assemble  in  Trinity  church  in  said  city,  or  in 
oue  of  its  chapels,  at  the  time  and  place  fixed 
by  law  or  the  charter  of  said  church,  for  its  an- 
nual elections.  A  majority  of  the  persons  so  to 
be  assembled,  shall  choose  by  ballot  the  said 
remaining  church  warden  and  ten  vestrymen  of 


Trinity  church ;  in  such  election  each  of  the 
churches,  so  represented,  shall  be  entitled  to 
one  vote  as  a  corporatiou,  and  one  additional 
vote  for  each  twenty. five  of  its  communicants, 
pew  holders,  or  occupants  of  seats  therein,  enti- 
tled to  vote  for  church  wardens  and  vestrymen 
in  said  church,  to  be  certified  by  the  Clerk  of 
the  vestry  of  such  chur  jh  ;  the  said  votes  all  to 
be  given  by  a  person  repiesenting  such  Church 
at  th«  said  election  ;  and  a  majority  of  the  votes 
so  given,  shall,  in  all  cases,  constitute  a  choice. 

^  2.  The  two  cTiurch  wardens  and  twenty  ves- 
trymen to  be  chosen  as  provide.!  in  the  preced- 
ing section,  shall  firot  apply  the  sum  of 
annually,  to  the  proper  maintenance  and  sup- 
port of  the  parish  of  said  Trinity  church,  and 
such  further  sums  as  may  be  needed  from  time 
to  time,  for  the  repair  or  renovation  of  its  church 
edifices  and  their  furniture  ;  all  which  shall  be 
disbursed  under  the  sole  direction  and  discre- 
tion of  the  church  warden  aud  teu  vestrymen 
so  to  be  chosen  by  the  pew-holders  and  com- 
municants of  said  church. 

5  3.  The  said  vestry  of  Trinity  church,  to  be 
elected  as  aforesaid,  shall  apply  the  income  of 
the  property  of  said  church,  and  all  proceeds  of 
the  sales  thereof,  to  the  payment,  first,  of  the 
interest  upon  its  debt  and  to  the  extinguishment 
of  so  much  of  the  principal  thereof,  as  they 
shall  deem  expedient,  until  the  debt  shall  be 
wholly  paid  ;  and  the  residue  of  said  income 
and  proceeds  to  the  support  and  extension  of  re- 
ligion and  religious  education  in  the  city  and 
state  of  New  York. 

^  4.  The  church  warden  and  ten  vestrymen  so 
to  be  chosen  by  the  pew  holders  and  communi- 
cants of  Trinity  church  and  its  chapels,  shall 
exclusively  possess  aud  control  the  church 
edifices  with  their  furniture  and  thechurch 
yards  and  cemeteries  belonging  to  said 
church,  and  shall  protect  the  same  from 
trespass  or  aggression.  They  shall  also  exclusive- 
ly choose  the  rector,  assistant  ministers  and  oth- 
er parish  officers,  and  with  the  concurrence  of 
the  rector,  shall  direct  its  religious  services,  aud 
the  disbursement  of  its  charitable  collections. 

J  5.  Any  vacancy  occasioned  by  death,  resig- 
nation, removal  or  otherwise,  in  either  branch  of 
the  vestry  mentioned  in  the  first  section  of  this 
act,  shall  be  filled  for  the  remainder  of  the  year, 
by  the  remaining  members  of  the  branch  in 
which  such  vacancy  shall  occur. 

Mr.  Noxon  :  Mr.  Chairman  : — Inasmuch  as  the 
substitute  that  is  oflered  by  the  Senator  from  the 
Gth,  does  in  effect,  remedy  in  some  degree  what 
is  claimed  to  be  oue  of  the  greatest  outrages  ever 
perpetrated  on  personal  rights,  I  do  not  know 
but  that  it  will  be  acceptable  to  those  parties 
in  New  York  who  have  been  injured  by  the  act 
of  1814  If  I  understand  the  purpose  of  the 
substitute,  it  is  that  Trinity  Church  shall  an- 
nually elect  fen  Vestrymen  and  oue  Church 
Warden,  and  that  teu  Vestrymen  and  one 
Church  Warden  shall  be  elected  in  th' other 
parishes  in  New  Yoik,  and  that  these  Vestry- 
men and  Wardens  thus  elected  shall  have  the 
care  of  this  great  fund. 


23 


I  care  not,  Mr.  ChairiBan,  how  the  objpct  id 
ttained.  I  have  no  dtsire  to  prtss  upon  the  Sen- 
te  the  particular  bill  reported  by  the  Committee, 
only  wish  that  the  rights  of  the  original  cor- 
lorators,  taken  from  them  V)y  the  law  of  1814, 
hall  be  restored  to  them. 

The  Senator  from  the  31st  has  seen  fit  to  say 
hat  I  have  only  touched  the  threshold  of  the 
egal  questions  involved  in  this  discussion. — 
Mr,  I  call  the  attention  of  the  Hon.  Senator  to 
he  fact  that  lie  has  only  to  read  the  charter  and 
,he  subsequent  laws  to  discover  his  error.  The 
sharter  telU  the  Hon.  Senator  that  this  property 
n  New  York,  granted  in  1697,  was  granted  to 
;he  use,  of  whom?— of  Trinity  Church  f — Oh  no  I 
but  as  the  charter  says,  (and  there  is  no  mistak- 
inij  its  language,)  of  those  inhabiting  and  to  inha- 
bit the  city  of  N.  Y.  in  communion  of  the  Church 
of  England.  Now  I  lay  down  the  bold  proposition 
that  the  language  of  the  charter  cannot  possilly 
bear  any  other  construction  than  that  I  liave 
put  upon  it,  and  that  it  settles  of  itself  all  ques- 
tions of  law;  and  when  I  call  the  attention  of- 
my  Honorable  friend  to  the  charter — to  the  plain 
declaration  on  its  face — it  is  for  him  to  answer  if 
he  has  got  any  la>T  to  disprove  it.  It  is  not  for 
me  to  produce  law  for  that  which  on  its  face 
must  directly  carry  conviction  to  every  man. 

But  it  does  not  stop  at  saying  to  whose  use  the 
property  is  dedicateil  ;  but  goes  on  to  describe 
who  shall  vote  for  Wardens  and  Vestrymen. 

If  1  understand  the  charter,  at  pige  9  it  says 
there  shall  be  annually  elected  two  Wardens 
and  twenty  Vestrymen,  and  that  those  who  vote 
for  them  shall  be  inhabitants  of— what? — not  of 
the  parishes  of  Trinity  or  her  chapels,  but  of  any 
parish  iu  New  York,  who  shall  be  communi- 
cants of  the  Church  of  England.  The  subse- 
quent act  of  1784  s  vys  "in  communion  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church."  Now  1  ask  the 
Hou.  Senator  in  view  of  the  grant,  which  is  too 
plain  to  que.^tion,  how  he  cau  say  that  I  have 
only  touched  the  thre.shold  of  the  legal  question  ? 

Mr.  Wadsworth  :  Will  the  Senator  allow  me 
one  moment?  I  desire  to  direct  his  attention  to 
the  fact  th.at  this  was  a  charter  to  build  the  first 
church  and  the  first  steeple  iu  the  city  of  New 
York. 

It  Qrst  makes  reference  to  the  minister.  Sec- 
ondly it  alludes  to  the  building  of  the  church, 
and  laying  the  foundation  of  the  steeple  Third- 
ly follows  the  royal  grant  ot  a  certain  church 
and  steeple,  with  ground  adjoining,  &c.  It  then 
goes  on  with  respect  to  expenses.  A  little  lower 
down  it  speaks  of  the  "aforesaid  church."  Low- 
er still,  of  the  Rector  of  the  aforesaid  church  ; 
making  it  clear  that  when  it  speaks  of  the  in- 
habitants of  New  Y''ork  iu  communion  of  our 
aforesaid  church  of  England,  it  alludes  to  that 
Biogle  church  to  which  the  charter  throughout 
has  reference.  It  is  in  view  of  these  facts  that 
I  think  it  would  be  well  for  the  Honorable  Sen- 
ator not  to  jemp  so  eagerly  to  the  9th  page  of 
the  charter,  but  commence  at  the  beginning,  and 
he  will  then  find  that  the  words  "in  communion 
of  our  aforesaid  church,"  alludes  to  Trinity 


church  alone,  as  it  alludes  to  one  Rector  and  to 
one  parish. 

Mr.  Noxon  :  I  am  very  willing  to  be  called  out 
on  that  branch  of  the  charter,  because  I  have 
given  great  attention  to  it,  and  I  think  if  the 
Hou.  Senator  had  taken  the  same  pains  to  un- 
derstand it  that  I  have,  he  would  find  that  the 
first  pnges  of  the  charter  have  no  reference  to 
the  grant.  The  church  was  already  built.  The 
preau.bie  re'-ites  what  has  been  done.  A  min- 
ister had  been  sent  into  the  counfy  "  for  the 
cure  of  souls."  After  a  time  this  church  was 
erected,  and  after  that,  the  then  Governor  of 
New  York,  who  had  interested  himself  muoii  in 
the  church,  petitioned  for  the  grant.  Then  comes 
the  preannb'e  in  the  charter,  providing  for  a  Pro- 
testant niinister.  There  was  in  1G93  no  minister 
in  New  York;  but  in  1C97  there  was.  A  little 
further  on  it  recites  the  petition  and  then  goes 
on  to  state  the  inducements  tor  the  charter.  The 
grant  itself  is  entirely  di  tinct  from  this  pream- 
ble. I  tell  the  Hon.  Senator  that  1  have  com- 
menced at  the  commencement,  and  perfectly  well 
understand  what  that  grant  is. 

JVIr.  Wadsworth:  If  the  Senator  looks  at  page 
11  he  will  (ind  what  that  grant  is. 

Mr.  Noxon:  My  attent'on  is  called  to  page  II. 
I  must  any  that  the  Hon.  Senator  is  wrong  again. 
The  allusion  at  that  page  is  to  the  finishing,  not 
to  the  erecting  of  the  church. 

Mr.  Wadsworth:  I  was  not  wrong  before.— 
The  church  was  in  process  of  erection. 

Mr.  No.xon:  No  Sir,  it  was  finished.  But  the 
charter  goes  on  to  say  what  the  name  of  the 
church  is.  Then  comes  the  next  question  as  to 
who  was  entitled  to  vote  for  wardens  and  vestry- 
men. The  Hon.  Senator  says  I  do  not  go  into 
the  legal  argument.  Sir,  I  present  facts — f  pre- 
sent the  grant,  which  says  that  the  inhabitants 
of  the  city  of  New  Yoik  of  that  faith  shall  vote. 

The  Hon.  Senator  in  his  opening  remarks,  has 
said  that  it  is  sousjht  by  the  advocates  of  this 
bill  to  accuse  Trinity  of  certain  crimes.  I  can 
only  say  the  charge  is  not  the  proof.  The  fact 
is,  this  belief  has  grown  up  in  the  mind  of  my 
honorable  friend,  and  is  without  foimdation. — 
The  id<>a  that  they  whose  rights  have  been  taken 
away  by  the  law  of  1814,  and  who  desire  that 
they  shall  be  restored,  would  tear  away  the 
graves  of  Trinity,  is  simply  ridiculous.  There  is 
no  evidence  on  the  poitit.  But  the  Hon.  Senator 
says  that  it  is  charged  as  a  great  crime  against 
Trinity  that  she  should  preserve  those  graves  — 
He  also  says  that  it  is  charged  as  acrin]e  against 
Trinity  that  she  will  not  sell  St.  John's  Park. — 
I  say  that  it  was  part  of  the  original  agreement 
that  the  park  was  to  be  sold;  and  yet  the  Hon. 
Senator  says  that  the  church  merely  fixed  a  price 
in  order  not  to  sell  it. 

I  was  a  little  astonished,  Sir,  to  hear  the  Hon. 
Senator  assert  that  it  was  charged  as  a  crime 
against  Trinity  that  she  rebuilt  her  church.  I 
said  distinctly  that  it  was  an  ornament  and 
honor  to  New  York  to  place  the  church  there  at 
that  point.  Not  that  1  think  there  is  any  necessity 
to  have  it  at  the  top  of  the  money  depot  of  the 


24 


city;  for  they  are  not  the  men  who  attend  Trinity 
church,  who  hover  about  their  money  boxes  in 
Wall  street.  Who  are  they  then,  lhat  attend 
the  church?  The  poor,  in  the  lower  part  of  the 
city.  The  rich  inhabitants  of  Wall  street  at- 
tend the  cl  urch  edifices  in  the  upper  part  of  the 
city.  But  the  Hon.  Senator  says  the  objection 
to  the  rebuilding  of  the  church  was  because  it 
was  desired  to  divide  up  the  property.  Who 
proposes  any  such  thing?  Does  the  bill  propose 
it?  Does  the  amendment  propose  it?  No  such 
thing.  There  is  no  such  proposition  except  in 
the  imagination  of  those  who  suggest  it. 

Now  how  is  this  great  fund  governed,  that  was 
to  benefit  all  the  original  corporators?  By  one 
hundred  and  fifty  men.  They  are  all  that  con- 
trol the  fund  that  was  designed  for  the  benefit 
of  all  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church,  residing  in  the  city  of  New  York. 
And  in  what  manner  are  their  elections  man- 
aged? 

[  call  attention  to  the  files,  where  the  fact  is 
shown  that  for  years,  less  than  thirty  men  have 
elected  the  Vestry. 

Mr.  Wadsworth:  I  have  made  the  statement, 
and  I  repeat  it,  that  any  person  who  is  a  com- 
municant of  that  church  is  entitled  to  be  a  cor- 
porator. Any  Episcopalian  may  join  the  Parish 
and  become  a  communicant  if  he  please,  and  there 
is  not  an  instance  on  record  of  a  single  commu- 
nicant being  refused  his  vote. 

Mr.  Noxon:  I  think  there  will  be  no  diffi- 
culty in  harmonizing  the  views  of  the  Hon. 
Senator  and  myself.  The  pew  holders  of  the 
church  are  protected.  The  act  of  1814  protects 
them.  I  only  make  the  statement  that  this  fund 
is  controlled  by  ISO  men,  instead  of  by  the  thou- 
sands of  corporators  who  are  dispossessed  by  the 
law  of  1814;  and  that  less  than  thirty  corporators 
elect  these  Vestrymen  who  have  endeavored  to 
break  down  the  committee  in  order  to  overrule 
and  override  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  New  York. 

1  might  stop  here  and  ask  one  single  question 
— why  is  it  lhat  there  is  sui'h  avidity,  such 
greediness  on  the  part  of  the  Vestry  to  hold  on 
to  the  power  lodged  in  their  hands  by  the  law 
of  1814?  The  Hon.  Senator  from  the  31st 
asks  if  Mr.  Dix  and  Mr.  Verplanck  are  to  be 
impeached  on  this  floor?  No  impeachment  is 
brought  against  them  I  The  charge  is  not  that 
the  fund  is  controlled  by  them  Indeed,  they 
have  resisted  from  time  to  time  in  the  Vestry 
the  acts  of  the  Corporation.  But  the  charge  is 
that  others  hold  on  to,  and  administer  the 
funds;  and  why  is  it  that  they  so  pertinaciously 
hold  on  to  the  church  ptopertj'  and  lease  it  out 
from  year  to  year?  Probably  on  account  of 
some  considerations  not  yet  brought  before  the 
Senate.  I  surmise  that  in  those  same  leases 
there  is  something  that  does  not  meet  the  eye. 
I  fancy  it  may  be  found  that  some  friend  stands 
behind,  in  the  back  ground;  some  son,  or  fath- 
er, or  brother  occupying  this  property  and  ma- 
king a  jirofitable  thing  out  of  these  leases.  I 
ask,  what  is  it  that  should  induce  them  to  hold 
on  to  this  property,  unless  something  that  the 
public  can  not  see? 


Mr.  Wadsworth:  Will  the  gentleman  state  thoii 
names  of  the  Vestrymen  he  thus  publicly  im«' 

peaches? 

Mr.  Noxon:  I  impeach  no  man.  I  surmise 
these  things — that  is  all.  But  can  the  gentle- 
man inform  us  why  it  is  that  they  thus  hold  oa 
to  this  power  to  lease  this  property? 

Mr.  Wadsworth;  We  can  read  lhat  in  the  evi- 
dence. 

Mr.  Noxon:  The  gentleman  asks,  if  these  ori- 
ginal corporators  are  allowed  to  come  in,  would 
the  ministers  now  at  Trinity's  altars  be  permit- 
ted to  remain?  I  answer  certainly  they  would, 
if  they  do  their  duty ;  but  if  not,  they  would  be 
removed,  as  they  ought  to  be.  Is  there  no  faith 
to  be  placed  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
outside  of  Trinity!  Is  alia  mob  beyond  her 
parishes?  Does  the  Senator  tell  me  that  the 
Protestant  Church  has  fallen  so  low  that  her 
elections  must  be  like  the  elections  of  the  Gth 
Ward,  and  that  her  voters  njust  be  dragged  to 
the  polls  with  bloody  noses,  by  the  force  of  cud- 
gels? I  do  not  believe  that  the  Senator  will 
make  any  such  impeachment  of  the  honorable 
gentlemen  who  are  here  petitioning  for  this  law. 

Again,  Ibe  Hon.  Senator  has  said  that  I  charge 
upon  Trinity  that  she  has  done  nothing  for  the 
cause  of  education.  1  do  not  think  I  made  any 
such  charge.  I  did  certainly  speak  of  what 
Trinity  has  done  in  the  way  of  charity  for  her 
own  poor.  But  when  the  gentlemen  mentions 
her  gifts  to  Columbia  College,  I  would  remind 
him  that  she  has  given  nothing  to  that  College 
since  1812.  I  do  not  deny  that  Trinity  does 
much  both  for  the  city  and  county;  but  while 
I  admit  she  does  much,  I  do  complain  that  she 
does  not  do  half  enough.  While  she  is  enrich- 
ing herself  by  holding  on  to  her  properly,  she 
does  not  give  away  half  enough.  It  can  not  be 
that  the  men  who  come  here  and  desire  to  have 
their  rights  secured,  are  against  the  country  :  for 
they  desire  to  increase  the  gil  ts,  and  consequent- 
ly the  usefulness  of  Trinity.  My  honorable 
friend  says  he  is  not  an  Episcopalian  nor  the  son 
of  an  Episcopalian.  I  trust  that  being  the  son  of 
an  Episcopalian,  I  can  speak  more  confidently 
than  himself  on  this  point.  I  know  the  charac- 
ter of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  ;  and  I 
should  be  the  last  Senator  on  this  floor  to  state 
that  Trinity  has  not  done  much  in  every  depart- 
ment of  religion  for  the  good  of  the  church. 

She  has  given  to  churches  in  New  York;  but 
the  complaint  is  that  she  has  given  only  feebly. 
She  has  only  taken  from  her  fund  one  quarter, 
when  she  might  have  taken  one  half. 

But  the  question  is  not  what  Trinity  gives  or 
witholds.  The  question  lies  at  the  back  of  all 
that  ;  because  if  the  persons  who  claim  to  have 
been  wronged  by  the  act  of  1814,  really  have 
rights  and  powers  under  the  original  charter,  no 
power  in  the  legislature  of  the  state  can  deprive 
them  thereof.  I  think  that  the  question  I  start 
ed  with  must  be  met,  and  met  fairly.  To  whom 
does  this  property  belong  ?  Does  it  belong  to 
Trinity  as  a  close  corporation,  sealed  from  the 
eyes  of  the  corporators  ;  or  does  it  belong  to 
the  corporators  themselves  t   If  it  does  belong 


I 


25 


to  them,  then  again  I  say  no  power  in  this  legis- 
lature can  take  it  from  them.  Though  the 
country  should  pour  in  her  petitions  by  the 
basket  full,  are  we  to  suffer  such  considerations 
to  control  us  ?  Have  we  not  the  right  to  say  that 
these  heneflciaries  in  the  original  grant  shall  not 
be  deposed,  even  if  the  restoration  of  their  rights 
diould  tend  to  dethrone  the  present  vestry  of  the 
church  ? 

My  honorable  friend,  in  the  course  of  his  re- 
marks, has  declared  that  consecrated  justice  is 
on  the  side  of  Trinity.  Where  can  it  be  found  ? 
In  her  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  corporators, 
who  have  wrested  from  the  other  corporators 
their  just  rights  ?  Tell  me  not  of  consecrated 
justice  from  those  who  are  steeped  in  iniquity  I — 
Trinity  church  never  had  any  right  in  the  pro- 
perty she  unjustly  holds.  Where  is  the  grant 
giving  her  such  right  ? 

Mr.  Wadsworth — It  is  in  the  charter.  The 
charter  gives  her  that  right 

Mr.  Noxon — No,  it  does  not.  It  gives  it  to  the 
corporators,  not  to  the  church.  The  church 
usurps  it,  and  yet  the  Senator  talks  about  its  con- 
secrated justice.  Consecrated  justice !  Why,  I 
wonder  that  the  embellishments  that  surround 
her  churches  do  not  cry  OTit  in  judgment  against 
her.  Consecrated  justice,  in  usurpation  !  Con- 
secrated justice,  in  iniquity  !  Consecrated  jus- 
tice, in  robbing  men  of  their  rights  ! 

Mr.  Wadsworth — Why  did  not  these  men  ex- 
ercise their  rights,  it  tbey  ever  possessed  them  ? 

Mr.  Noxon  ; — The  Hon.  Senator  asks  why  they 
dirs  not  exercise  their  rights.  Suppose  any  spe- 
cial right  should  be  granted  to  him  ;  the  non- 
exercise  of  it  would  not  invalidate  it.  There  are 
rights  of  which  no  refusal  to  exercise  can  deprive 
men — the  right  of  suffrage,  for  instance.  Does 
not  that  right  remain  with  a  man,  let  him  exer- 
cise it  or  not,  until  he  goes  down  to  the  grave  ? 
I  ask  the  Senator  from  the  31st  if  it  would  not 
be  a  bold  proposition,  should  a  man  not  expr- 
cise  his  right  to  vote,  for  40  years,  to  challenge 
his  ballot,  when  at  last  he  came  to  offer  it  at  the 
polls?  And  so  of  every  other  right,  the  exer- 
cise of  which  is  voluntary  and  not  compulsory. 
My  Hon.  friend  has  seen  fit  to  liken  these  origi- 
nal corporators  who  came  here  asking  for  this 
bill  to  the  Senate,  should  it  go  into  the  Astor 
House,  and  insist  upon  entering  into  a  partner- 
ship in  the  property  with  its  owner.  Sir,  I 
would  ask  him  here,  whether  Mr.  Astor  would 
forfeit  the  rights  he  possesses  in  that  property 
unless  he  should  every  day,  or  every  week,  or 
every  month  come  and  stand  around  the  bar 
room  and  claim  his  rights  ?  These  men  ask  but 
the  renewal  of  an  original  partnership,  from 
which  they  never  were  dispossessed  except  by  an 
unconstitutional  law. 

Mr.  Wadsworth  :  If  the  Hon.  Senator  wiU  al- 
low me,  I  will  ask  him  why,  if  this  great  wrong 
is  really  done  to  any  corporator,  he  does  not 
offer  his  vote  at  the  annual  election  ;  and  when 
his  ballot  is  refused,  apply  at  once  for  a  manda- 
mus and  seek  his  remedy  in  the  courts  ?  Why 
have  these  men  been  thus  wronged  for  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years,  when  the  courts  are  ever 


open,  and  Judges  sit  ever  ready  to  protect  the 
constitutional  rights  of  the  people  ? 

Mr.  Noxon  :  1  will  tell  the  Senator  why.  If 
the  case  was  the  case  of  a  single  individual  there 
would  be  no  difficulty  about  it.  But  it  is  not, 
and  there  are  too  many  interested  to  make  it 
practicable  or  advisable  to  go  to  the  courts.  Why 
it  would  be  the  delight  of  Trinity  if  eight 
thousand  persons  should  each  come  into  the 
courts,  for  Trinity  church  would  enjoy  the  pro- 
tracted law  suits  till  the  suitors  all  went  down  in- 
the  to  grave.  I  say  it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  the 
Senate  to  interpose  and  protect  the  people  of 
the  state  of  New  York  from  a  litigation  involv- 
ing hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars.  The 
idea  has  long  since  been  proposed  by  Trinity, 
that  these  questions  should  be  tested  by  the 
courts  of  law,  in  order  that  she  might  string  an 
interminable  law  suit  along  for  years  ;  but  as 
soon  as  the  injured  persons  come  here  for  the 
redress  that  is  their  right,  the  cry  of  the  church 
is  that  "it  will  produce  litigation." 

The  Senator  from  the  31st  says  that  he  trem- 
bles for  the  Church  and  for  the  country  if  this 
hill  should  be  enacted.  Sir,  I  tr  emble  for  both, 
if  this  power  thus  consecrated  to  injustice  is  to 
rule  the  State  of  New  York  and  her  Councils. 
If  this  Corporation,  created  by  the  law  of  1814 
is  to  mould  the  legislature,  as  she  does  the 
Church,  to  her  will.  The  manner  in  which  she 
exercises  and  wields  the  power  she  does  possess, 
is  seen  in  every  paper  that  has  been  laid  upon 
our  desks.  I  see  that  the  Honorable  Senator 
from  the  27th  in  presenting  one  of  the  Memo- 
rials of  these  subsidized  Country  Churches, 
thought  fit  to  say  with  emphasis  that  it  was  from 
a  hw  Church. 

Mr.  Hale  :  I  said  from  a  Church  low  in  funds, 
which  had  never  received  the  bounty  of  Trinity. 

Mr.  Noxon  :  If  she  is  low  in  funds  then  prob- 
ably she  is  an  applicant  for  that  bounty.  These 
churches  do  not  come  Iiere  on  behalf  of  Trinity, 
unless  some  secret  spring  moves  and  controls 
their  action. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  Hon.  Senator  from  the  31st 
was  a  little  flighty  in  imagination,  when  depict- 
ing the  serious  consequences  that  would  follow 
the  passage  of  this  bill.  It  does  not  appear  to 
me  that  the  matter  should  excite  much  feeling. 
Why,  who  are  the  corporators  of  the  church 
now  ?  Do  they  not  elect  the  Vestry  ?  What  is 
to  occasion  this  tearing  down  of  the  church — 
this  division  of  family  from  family — this  sever- 
ing of  friend  from  friend  ?  The  bill  before  us 
simply  mentions  the  persons  who,  as  communi- 
cants of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  New 
York,  are  to  be  entitled  to  vote  for  Vestrymen 
of  the  church.  And  then  what  ?  Can  the  gen- 
tleman suppose  that  the  Episcopalians  in  New 
York  are  so  lost  to  a  sense  of  justice  as  to  elect 
annually  to  the  positions  of  Wardens  and  Ves- 
trymen such  men  as  are  fit  only  to  be  elected  at 
the  6th  Ward  polls  ?  Sir,  I  have  more  confi- 
dence in  the  Episcopalians  in  and  out  of  the  city 
of  New  York,  as  not  to  believe  that  they  are 
men,  as  upright  and  honorable  as  any  of  those 
who  appear  here  as  the  special  advocates  of 


26 


Trinity.  Can  it  be  possible,  I  ask,  that  the  Hon. 
Senator  believes  the  Episcopalians  of  New  York 
would  elect  men  wuo  would  not  discharge  their 
sacred  trust  faithfully  and  impartially  ?  I  think 
when  he  comes  to  reflect  upon  this  subject  more 
maturely,  he  will  recall  any  such  insinuation. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  bill  now  under  considera- 
tion does  not,  as  I  have  said,  alter  the  Vestry, 
but  only  says  who  shall  elect  them.  Now,  Sir, 
I  think  that  if  the  citizens  of  New  York,  out- 
side of  Trinity,  could  have  only  a  single  mem- 
ber elected  in  that  corporation, it  would  do  much 
good.  Just  one — to  act  as  a  check  upon  the 
Vestry.  But  no  ;  even  that  proposition  would 
not  be  listened  to  by  the  church.  The  design  is 
that  the  corporation  shall  be  a  close  one  ;  that 
neither  the  Rector,  nor  the  Bishop,  nor  the  cor- 
poration shall  know  anything  of  its  acts.  It  con- 
trols the  Conventions  of  the  Diocese,  so  as  to 
put  into  power  High  Churchmen  only ;  and 
when  it  comes  into  the  Legislature,  it  can  be 
seen  how  entirely  it  controls  the  country  church, 
I  have  said  that  the  power  of  Trinity  is  unques- 
tionably greater  than  that  of  any  Railroad  or 
Bank,  or  Insurance  corporation  in  existence. — 
What  other  corporation  is  there,  I  ask,  that  can 
io  as  this  one  has  done?  She  has  poured  in 
memorials  upon  us,  as  if  wires,  attached  to  ov- 
ary clergyman  in  the  State,  lead  into  the  green 
room  of  her  Vestry,  and  she  had  only  to  pull 
them  in  order  to  work  her  will.  Not  live  days 
had  elapsed  when  we  found  these  memorials 
pouring  in  from  churches  in  every  part  of  the 
State  of  New  York. 

From  all  portions  of  the  State  come  these  re- 
monstrances against  the  Senate's  touching  Trin- 
ity, because, forsooth,she  is  so  sacred  in  the  eyes 
of  the  country  churches ! 

Mr.  Wadsworth  :  It  is  the  natural  attachment 
of  a  child  to  Its  parent. 

Mr.  Noxon  :  The  Senator  says  it  is  the  natural 
attachment  of  a  child  to  its  parent.  I  ask  him 
what  does  that  parent  do  to  her  other  children 
in  the  State  of  New  York  1  And  who  are  these 
children  who  are  coming  here  and  displaying  so 
much  fondness  and  allection  for  their  old  mother 
church  ?  Who,  but  those  who  are  receiving  or 
expecting  bounties  from  her,  or  over  whom  she 
holds  mortgages  which  she  could  foreclose,  if 
she  pleased,  to  punish  them  for  neglecting  her 
wishes? 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  not  true,  but  a  fiction 
arising  in  the  fancy  of  my  Honorable  friend,  that 
the  money  of  this  churcli  is  to  be  confiscated — 
the  church  to  be  toru  down — <he  graves  to  be 
violated — and  the  whole  property  scattered  to 
the  four  winds,  by  the  vestry  to  be  elected  under 
the  provisions  of  this  bill.  It  is  a  dream  of  the 
church,  which  I  am  sorry  to  say  my  Honorable 
friend  has  expressed  here  as  a  waking  dream, 
and  not  a  sleeping  dream. 

I  say  it  is  a  matter  of  impossibility  to  suppose 
these  thing  probable,  because  when  I  mention 
the  names  of  Luther  Bradish,  Cambreling,  Win- 
ston, Brown,  Minturn,  Cooley,  Jay,  and  Wolfe, 
the  men  wuo  are  accused  of  desiring  to  thus  dis- 
member Trinity,  every  one  must  admit  that 
they  stand  too  high  in  the  city  of  New  York  to 


be  reached  even  by  the  flights  of  fancy  of  my 
honorable  friend,  who,  in  the  exitement  of  de- 
bate made  this  charge  against  them. 

Mr.  Wadsworth : — I  ask  the  Senator  if  he  does 
not  think  these  gentlemen  must  have  been  a 
little  excited  themselves  when  they  declared  i 
that  there  was  in  the  church  propertv  "enough  l 
for  aU  ?" 

Mr.  Noxon  : — Well,  let  us  see  what  those 
words  mean.  I  call  attention  to  the  charge,  and 
then  to  the  following  card,  which  I  will  read, 
and  upon  which  it  is  grounded  : 

New  York,  March  23,  1857.  ! 
To  the  Editor  of  the  Gospel  Meesenger,  Utica,  N.  Y.: 

Sir — In  your  comment  of  Friday  last  upon  our 
"  Statement  and  Declaration,"  as  the  Executive 
Committee  appointed  at  a  large  meeting  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York  in  commu- 
nion of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  re- 
gard to  the  aflairs  of  Trinity  Church,  you  do  us 
great  injustice  in  stating  the  object  of  our  move- 
ment to  be  that  the  funds  of  the  Church,  shall 
hereafter  be  a]^Tpliei  "to  ciiy  churches  only."  No 
uch  restrictive  phrase  has  ever  been  used  by  us, 
or  was  heard  at  the  meeting  which  appointed  us, 
or  has  found  expression  in  any  of  our  more  inlor- 
mal  conversation, on  the  subject;  and  so  far  as  we 
know,  there  is  no  restrictive  design  or  desire 
cherished  by  any  of  ourselves,  or  of  those  who 
act  with  us  in  this  matter.  This  charge,  at 
which  we  now  reply,  has  been  from  the  first  on 
altogether  gratuitous  injustice  to  our  moti'ves-  P 
which  we  have  always  repudiated  as  utterly  un, 
founded.  There  is  no  reason  why  we  of  the 
city  should  have  any  desire  to  diminish,  in  any 
way,  the  aid  hitherto  extended  to  the  country  ; 
for  we  believe,  and  it  has  been  proved,  that 
there  is  enough  for  all  ;  and  our  desire  is  that  all 
may  impartially  participate  therein. 

L.  BRADISH,  ROBERT  B.  MINTURN 

S.  CAMBRKLENO,    J.  E,  COOLKY, 
F.  S.  WINST  )N,        WILLIAM  .JAY. 
STEWART  BBOWN,  JOHN  DAVID  WOLFE. 

Committee. 

Now,  what  do  these  gentlemen  mean  by  say- 
ing that  there  is  "enough  for  all  ?"  Simply  that 
there  is  enough  in  this  great  fund  of  Trinity 
church,  to  aid  not  only  the  city,  but  the  coun- 
try churches  as  well.  What  does  the  Senator 
mean  by  stating  that  these  persons  are  acting  i 
against  the  country  churches,  and  in  the  same 
breath  finding  fault  with  them  when  they  say 
there  is  ''enough  for  all"  these  churches  f  I  re- 
peat, Mr.  Chairman,  what  I  have  before  stated, 
that  the  charge  is  entirely  groundless  that  these 
men  are  unwilling  that  Trinity's  fund  should  aid 
the  country  churches.  I  repeat  that  they  give 
more  annually  out  of  their  own  mi^ans  to  the 
country  churches,  than  Trinity  herself  gives;  and 
I  say  that  it  is  to  prove  their  desire  to  assist  the 
country  churches  that  they  use  in  their  card  the 
words  so  ofiensive  to  the  Senator  from  the  31st 
— "  there  is  enough  for  all."  i 

At  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Noxon's  remarks  th«  \ 
committee    rose,  the  substitute  was    ordered  / 
printed,  and  the  bill  was  made  a  special  ordei 
for  Tnofiday  evening  at  7  P.  m. 


27 


IN  SENATE. . . .  March  31—7  p.  M. 

The  special  order  lieiug  announced,  Mr.  D.ar- 
ling  resumed  tlie  chair,  and  stated  the  question 
to  be  on  striking  out  the  enacting  clause  of  the 
Trinity  church  bill. 

Mr.  Noxon. — Mr.  Chairman :  I  withdrew  that 
motion,  in  order  that  the  amendment  of  the 
Senator  from  the  6th  might  be  before  the  com- 
mittee. 

The  Chair. — The  Senator  is  correct.  The 
question  is,  therefore,  on  the  substitute  for  the 
bill  of  the  committee,  offered  by  the  Senator 
from  the  6th. 

Mr.  Noxon. — Mr.  Chairman :  I  desire  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  Senator  from  the  6th  to  the 
first  line  of  the  3rd  section  of  his  substitute, 
where  the  words  "  the  said  "Vestry  of  Trinity 
church,"  should  read  "the  said  Warden  and 
Vestry  &c." 

Mr.  Brooks. — I  am  aware  of  the  amendment 
needed,  and  it  is  my  iiitention  to  associate  the 
Rector,  with  the  Warden  and  Vestry.  I  shall 
move  the  amendment,  Mr.  Chairman,  at  the 
proper  time. 

Mr.  Ramsey  then  obtained  the  iloor.    He  said  : 

Mr.  Chairman :  After  the  able  manner  in 
wtioh  the  question  before  has  been  argued  on 
the  part  of  the  Committee,  it  is  not  proper  nor 
necessary  to  go  over  the  whole  ground  again  ;  as 
any  remarks  I  might  make  would  necessarily  in 
a  great  degree  be  nothing  more  than  mere  repe- 
tition. The  question  presenting  itself  is  of  very 
considerable  importance.  It  is  a  question  that 
has  already  excited  and  is  still  exciting  public 
interest  to  a  great  extent ;  and  it  certainly  is  de- 
Eirable  on  the  part  of  this  body  to  arrive  at  a 
correct  conclusion  in  relation  to  this  subject.  So 
far  as  the  Committee  is  concerned,  as  has 
abeady  been  stated,  they  have  occupied  con- 
siderable time  in  investigating  this  matter,  and 
have  presented,  under  circumstances  which  have 
teen  explained,  two  different  reports  in  which 
their  views  of  the  matter  are  presented. 

To  my  mind,  Mr.  Chairman,  all  there  is  in  this 
question  is  contained  withing  a  small  compass ; 
and  although  extraneous  matters  are  brought 
forward  for  the  purpose  of  producing  an  effect, 
yet  the  real  points  at  issue  between  the  parties 
are  embraced  in  a  very  small  compass.  It  seems 
to  me  that  if  the  question  legitimately  before 
this  body  is  passed  on  without  reterence  to  ex- 
traneous matters,  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in 
arriving  at  a  correct  and  speedy  conclusion. 

The  lirst  and  most  important  question  is,  as  to 
the  legal  merits  of  the  question— as  to  the  legal 
rights  of  the  parties  concerned  iu  this  matter. 
It  will  not  be  disputed  that  previous  to  the  year 
1814,  the  original  charter,  and  the  subsequent 
acts  of  the  Legislature  giving  construction  to 
th*t  charter  and  amending  it  in  several  particu- 
lars, were  clear  and  explicit,  so  far  as  the  grant 
of  this  property  was  concerned. 

There  can  be  no  question  as  to  who  the  bene- 
ficiaries were  under  that  grant.  The  language  is 
too  clear  to  admit  of  any  doubt.  It  was  to  the 
the  rector,  and  inhabitants— in  the  language  of 


the  charter — of  our  said  city  of  New  York,  in 
communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  ashy  law 
established.  It  expressly  embraced  all  inhabi- 
tants from  time  to  time  inhabiting,  and  to  in- 
inhabit  the  city  of  New  York.  Now,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  this  grant  was  originally  made 
for  the  benefit  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New  York  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church. 

The  difficulty  has  arisen  from  the  change 
which  time  has  produced.  In  going  back  to  the 
time  of  the  original  grant,  we  find  that  New  York 
was  a  mere  huddle  of  buildings  It  increased. 
Trinity  was  the  first  church  established  there. 
She  afterwards  organized  her  chapels,  and  up  to 
1814  Trinity  church  and  her  chapels  were  able 
to  accommodade  nearly,  if  not  quite  all  the 
members  of  that  church.  But  in  1814  the  act 
was  passed  which  created  this  difficulty.  By  that 
act,  the  corporators,  or  those  interested  in  the 
funds — the  beneficiaries  were  cut  off.  I  know 
it  is  said  that  previous  to  that  time  they  never 
exercised  their  rights.  But  by  looking  at  the 
history  of  the  matter  it  will  be  seen  there  was  no 
occasion  to  exercise  those  rights.  But  it  appears 
that  shortly  before  1814  there  wa$  an  attempt  to 
exercise  their  rights,  and  Trinity,  foreseeing  the 
difficulty — as  she  then  viewed  it — that  might 
arise,  came  to  the  legislature  and  obtained  the 
act  which  cut  off'  all  the  Episcopalians  from 
their  right  as  voters,  except  those  of  Trinity 
parish.  There  cannot  be  a  question  of  these 
facts.  If  that  was  not  the  object  of  the  act,  why 
was  it  obtained  ?  But  at  that  time,  as  has  al- 
ready been  stated,  there  was  much  difficulty  in 
relation  to  the  act.  Some  of  the  ablest  jurists 
in  the  State  were  of  the  impression  and  belief 
that  it  was  unconstitutional,  and  those  gentle- 
men composing  the  Council  of  Revision,  occu- 
pied the  position  which  has  been  named. — 
Among  them  was  Chief  Justice  Spencer  and  oth- 
ers. But  the  act  was  passed.  It  appears  also 
from  the  journal,  that  it  was  passed  through 
with  rather  a  rapid  vote,  and  that  there  were 
protests  at  the  time  against  the  act.  But  Trinity, 
with  her  wealth  and  influence,  at  that  time  ac- 
complished her  purpose. 

Since  that  time,  no  other  corporators  except 
those  residing  in  Trinity  parish,  have  exerci.sed 
this  right  of  voting  at  the  Vestry  elections  of  the 
Church. 

Now  here  is  a  simple  proposition  involving  a 
question  of  right  and  wrong ;  and  I  hold  that  in 
disposing  of  this  matter,  although  Trinity  mig'ht 
be  willing  to  lavish  on  other  parishes  of  the  State 
half  her  wealth,  if  the  act  of  1814  cut  off  other 
corporators  from  the  right  of  participating  in 
this  fund,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  res- 
tore to  those  corporators  their  equal  and  just 
rights.  I  submit  whether  there  can  be  any  ques- 
tion, taking  into  consideration  the  language  of 
the  charter  and  the  subsequent  acts,  and  then 
taking  into  consideration  the  object  of  the  pas- 
sage of  the  act  of  1814  and  its  effect,  that  there 
was  a  great  wrong  committed  by  that  act. 

I  hold,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  ought  not  to 
stop  here  to  calculate  what  all  these  corporators 


28 


would  do  with  the  property,  or  whether  the  ben- 
eficiaries would  or  would  not  control  the  fund 
discreetly.  It  is  not  a  question  of  expediency, 
but  of  right  and  wrong.  It  is  simply  for  us  to 
enquire  whether  we  shall  do  justice  to  the  origi- 
nal corporators  by  permitting  those  intended  in 
the  original  grant,  to  control  the  fund,  or  wheth- 
er we  shall  deny  them  that  right. 

Mr.  Chairman,  to  my  mind,  if  ever  I  sat  down 
to  investigate  any  subject  without  predilection 
or  prejudice  it  was  this  very  question.  It  is  a 
question  that  to  my  mind  is  too  clear  to  admit 
of  any  doubt  as  to  the  construction  of  the  language 
used  in  the  original  charter  and  tbe  subst'quent 
acts,  and  of  the  effect  of  the  act  of  1814  ;  and  the 
fact  being  established  as  to  tlie  right  of  all  the 
Protestant  Episcopalians  in  the  city  of  New  York 
to  share  in  the  bennfits  of  this  fund  and  to  con- 
trol it,  the  effect  that  is  to  be  produced  by  the 
modification  of  the  law  of  1814,  and  the  question 
as  to  wliether  the  fund  will  be  properly  admin- 
istered in  the  hands  of  those  whose  rights  are  to 
be  restored  by  the  bill  before  us,  are  questions 
entirely  outside  the  real  merits  of  the  case. 

I  am  aware,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  throughout 
the  country,  and  particularly  out  of  the  city 
of  New  York,  there  is  considerable  feel- 
ing upon  this  subject.  But  what  is  the  cause  ? 
Because  it  is  represented  that  the  Episcopalians 
out  of  Trinity's  parishes  in  the  city  of  N.  Y., 
wish  to  control  this  fund  for  their  own  benefit, 
and  to  cut  off  the  country  churches  ;  and  if  the 
act  we  propose  should  take  eff-  ct,  they  will  not 
only  be  entirely  cut  off  from  all  further  partici- 
pation therein,  but  be  called  upon  to  pay  the 
mortgages  already  given  for  grants  previously 
made.  As  I  said  before,  even  admitting  this  to 
be  so,  it  does  not  weigh  a  feather  in  the  scale  of 
justice  in  this  matter.  If  this  fund  belongs  to 
the  Episcopalians  of  New  York  city,  they  have 
a  right  to  control  it.  whether  they  give  one  dol- 
lar to  the  country  churches  or  not.  But,  sir,  I 
do  not  believe  the  law  proposed  would  have  any 
such  effect.  I  believe  the  country  would  con- 
tinuj  to  receive  as  much,  and  probably  more 
than  at  present.  If  we  eonsiderthe  whole  amount 
of  property  possessed  by  Trinity,  the  portion  she 
distributes  in  the  country  is  a  mere  crumb  in 
comparison  to  her  vast  wealth. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  said  that  this  move- 
ment against  Trinity  is  of  a  Vandal  character  ; 
that  it  is  designed  to  affect  the  rights  of  proper- 
ty ;  that  its  object  is  to  destroy  the  rights  of 
Trinity  Church  and  to  scatter  its  property  to  the 
four  winds.  Sir,  I  do  not  understand  that  to  be 
the  object  or  the  effect  of  the  proposed  repeal  at 
all  ;  but  on  the  other  hand  I  do  believe  it  would 
have  a  directly  contrary  effect,  and  would  in- 
crease the  efficiency  and  usefulness  of  the  fund. 
The  present  number  of  the  corporators  has  al- 
ready been  referred  to — the  number  of  those 
who  have  control  of  the  affairs  of  the  corpora- 
tion. Now  what  is  proposed  by  the  bill  under 
consideration,  is  simply  to  extend  the  right  to 
all  those  entitled  to  it  under  the  original  char- 
ter. But  it  is  urged  that  this  would  produce 
very  great  confusion ;  that  it  would  lead  at  elec- 


tions hereafter  to  riot  and  difficulty  ;  that  if  this 
section  of  the  act  of  1814  be  repealed,  the  elec- 
tions of  the  Church  will  in  future  resemble  a 
mob  more  than  any  thing  else ;  and  they  have 
been  compared  with  elections  in  the  6th  Ward 
of  the  city. 

Mr.  Chairman :  I  was  astonished  and  sur- 
prised to  hear  any  such  language  and  allusions 
used  towards  Episcopalians  outside  Trinity  in 
the  city  of  New  York.  Does  the  Hon.  Senator 
from  the  31st  mean  to  say  that  the  Episcopalians 
outside  Trinity  are  not  men  of  as  high  character 
and  as  capable  of  discharging  the  sacred  duties 
of  this  trust  as  are  those  who  reside  in  Trinity 
Parish  ?  Are  they  not  men  as  devoted  to  the 
great  interests  of  the  Church  ;  as  high  toned  in 
all  their  religious  notions ;  as  high  toned  in 
morals,  and  with  as  much  regard  for  the  inter- 
ests of  religion  as  those  who  happen  to  be  with- 
in the  pale  of  Trinity  ?  Where  is  the  man  that 
will  get  up  and  assert  to  the  contrary  ? 

Then  1  ask  what  is  the  danger,  laying  aside 
the  question  of  right,  and  viewing  it  merely  as  a 
matter  of  policy,  what  is  the  danger  of  admitting 
Episcopalians  outside  of  Trinity  Church  in  New 
York,  to  the  enjoyment  of  their  legal  and  just 
rights  ?  Clearly  none  ;  and  by  adopting  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  Senator  from  the 
6tb,  it  appears  to  me  that  every  objection  that 
is  urged  will  be  obviated.  Its  provision  would 
create  entire  harmony  in  the  church,  by  giving 
to  those  entitled  to  them  their  rights.  But  I  ask 
how  Trinity  church  can  ever  expect  to  prosper, 
and  to  gain  that  christian  feeling,  respect  and 
good  will  from  the  city  of  New  York  and  from 
the  whole  country,  with  this  great  wrong  resting 
on  her,  of  having  cut  off  and  disfranchised  those 
having  the  same  rights  as  corporators  with  her- 
self. Sir,  I  have  no  doubt  the  present  vestry, 
the  great  sticklers  for  Trinity,  will  in  the  end  be 
convinced  that  what  we  propose  is  all  for  the 
best;  and  that  when  they  look  calmly  at  the 
question,  they  will  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  repeal  asked  for  will  heal  these  unhappy  dis- 
sensions, and  advance  the  true  interests  of  the 
church. 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  has  been  said  that  the  object 
of  those  now  seeking  the  repeal  of  a  portion  of 
the  act  of  1814  is,  to  disturb  the  ashes  of  the 
dead  in  the  grave-yards  of  Trinity,  and  to  open 
streets  through  her  property.  Why,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, it  is  a  gross  liliel,  I  am  satisfied,  on  the 
high-minded,  honorable  men  who  are  here  ask- 
ing the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814 ;  and  I  thint 
the  honorable  gentlemen  should  not  charge  them 
with  motives  of  that  kind ,  unless  he  nas  better 
evidence  than  any  that  appears  before  the  Senate. 

It  has  been  charged  also  that  those  moving  in 
this  matter  are  the  "speculative  philosophers  off 
Wall  street,"  and  that  their  object  is  to  scatter! 
the  church  property,  in  order  that  they  may  | 
have  an  opportunity  to  obtain  some  of  it;  that,/ 
in  fact,  it  is  a  sort  of  stock-jobbing  operation. 

This,  in  my  opinion,  is  equally  unjust,  and  I 
am  surprised  that  the  Hon.  Senator  should  feel 
called  upon  to  make  any  such  charge.  The 
character  of  the  men  who  ask  for  this  repeal  is 


29 


St  above  suspicion  in  any  such  respect  as  that ; 
and  the  insinuation  as  to  their  motives  is  entire- 
ly without  foundation.  It  has  heen  charged  al- 
so, as  I  have  said,  that  this  is  an  attempt  to  in- 
terfere with  the  sacred  rights  of  property  ;  that 
the  object  of  those  asking  this  repeal,  is  to  de- 
prive Trinity  of  her  property  and  to  despoil  her 
of  what  rightfully  belongs  to  her.  Sir,  the  fact 
is  the  direct  reverse  of  this.  The  purpose  of  the 
bill  is  to  give  to  those  who  have  been  deprived 
of  them,  their  just  rights.  Its  object  is  simply 
to  restore  to  the  original  corporators  of  the  church 
their  original  rights.  Talk  of  violating  the  sacred 
rights  of  property  I  The  sacred  rights  of  property 
were  violated  by  the  law  of  1814,  and  that  is 
what  we  are  called  upon  to  repeal ;  and  I  ask  if 
we  ought  not  to  do  it  ?  By  so  doing  we  respect 
the  rights  of  property ;  and  I  have  no  fear  but 
the  corporators  will  discharge  their  duties,  and 
that,  too,  with  entire  devotion  and  honor. 

But  we  are  asked,  Mr.  Chairman,  who  consti- 
tute the  present  Vestry  ?  Are  they  not  respon- 
sible, high  minded  men  ?  Why,  sir,  no  one  is 
disposed  to  charge  the  present  Vestry  with  in- 
tentional wrongs.  They  may  believe  that  it  is  for 
the  best  interests  otthe  church,  to  have  the  fund 
controlled  by  them ;  that  by  permitting  the  cor- 
porators entitled  to  participate  in  the  fund  to  do 
so,  a  great  wrong  would  be  done  to  the  Church, 
and  that  the  original  corporators  are  not  as  cap- 
able as  they  themselves  are,  to  administer  the 
sacred  trust.  Now  the  whole  argument  lies  in 
this  if  this :  Vestry  are  not  entitled  to  administer 
that  trust — if  others  are  entitled  to  participate  in  it 
— then  they  should  give  way,  and  let  all  those 
have  a  voice  in  its  management  who  are  entitled 
to  a  vote  under  the  original  grant. 

I  have  no  doubt,  though  it  has  been  said  that 
the  bill  before  us  will  let  loose  upon  the  church 
six  thousand  corj)orators,  the  Episcoj  alians  of 
New  York  will  appoint  a  vestry  who  will  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  the  office  as  much  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  church  and  of  society  at 
large,  as  do  the  present  vestry  of  Trinity  Church. 
There  is  no  necessity  to  charge  that  vestry  with 
wrong.  I  do  not  intend  to  do  so.  I  believe  them 
to  be  high  minded,  honorable  mpn  ;  but  that  is 
no  reason  that  the  corporators  outside  of  Trinity 
parishes  should  be  cut  ofl'  from  their  rights.  It 
has  been  asked  why  these  corporators  do  not  re- 
sort to  the  Courts,  and  it  has  been  answered  that 
it  would  be  not  like  one,  or  two,  or  three  dozen 
individuals  going  into  the  Courts  against  Trinity 
Church.  A  warfare  of  that  character  would  be 
any  thing  but  even  handed.  Besides,  we  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question  as  to  why  law 
suits  are  not  commenced  and  individual  rights 
sought  in  the  Courts.  The  simple  question  for 
us  to  consider  is,  have  the  original  corporators 


been  deprived  of  their  rights  ;  and  if  so,  then 
the  duty  rests  upon  us,  as  far  as  we  can  do  so, 

to  restore  those  rights. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  no  disposition  to  take 
up  the  time  of  the  committee  unnecessarily  on 
this  subject.  The  question  has  been  very  ably 
presented  in  all  its  forms  and  details,  by  my  as- 
sociate on  the  committee.  All  I  ask,  as  one  of 
the  members  of  the  committee  is,  that  the  ques- 
tion may  be  passed  on  by  the  Senate  without  re- 
gard to  anything  but  the  merits  involved  in  the 
controversy.  I  only  ask  that  all  extraneous  mat- 
ters may  be  laid  aside,  and  particularly  those 
which  refer  to  the  unnecessary  alarm  of  the 
country  churches.  I  am  aware  that  a  strong 
outside  pressure  has  been  brought  to  bear  on 
members  of  this  Senate  in  favor  of  Trinity.  I 
know  that  memorials  have  been  presented,  and 
doubtless  signed  in  good  faith,  by  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  individuals,  under  the  impression 
that  Trinity  was  to  be  violated,  and  the  country 
churches  cut  off  from  the  stipends  they  have 
heretofore  received. 

Mr.  Chairman,  so  far  as  the  Country  churches 
are  concerned  in  this  matter,  it  is  of  hut  very  little 
consequence  in  deciding  on  the  real  merits  of  the 
question  whether  they  will  suffer  or  not ;  and  I 
ask  where  is  the  Church  in  the  country  that 
would  ask  us  as  legislators  to  do  that  which 
we  believe  to  be  wrong,  simply  that  she  mighty 
receive  a  larger  stipend  ?  Now  I  do  not  believe 
that  feeling  exists  in  any  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  State.  I  do  not  believe  that  they 
would  ask  us  to  do  an  injustice,  that  they  might 
receive  more  money.  They  have  too  much 
christian  charity — they  are  too  high  toned  in 
their  morality  and  too  faithful  and  pure  in  their 
religion  to  descend  so  low.  But  as  I  have  said 
before,  instead  of  the  stipends  of  the  Country 
churches  being  diminished,  I  believe  they  will 
be  increased,  while  at  the  same  time  that  har- 
monv  will  be  restored  in  the  Church,  which 
never  can  exist  while  this  great  wrong  is  suffered 
to  remain.  Let  right  be  done — let  justice  be 
done — and  I  have  no  doubt  the  country  will  re- 
tain all  she  has  heretofore  had,  and  gain  much 
more. 

Mr.  Sickles :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  desire  to  be 
heard  by  the  committee  on  the  subject  at  pres- 
ent occupying  its  attention,  but  I  have  under- 
stood that  the  time  this  evening  was  to  be  con- 
sumed by  a  Senator  not  now  in  his  place,  and 
who  I  learn  is  unavoidably  absent  through  sick- 
ness in  his  family.  With  a  view  of  doing  just- 
ice to  that  gentleman,  therefore  I  now  move  that 
,the  committee  rise  and  report  progress. 

The  committee  then  rose,  and  the  bill  was 
made  a  special  order  for  Wednesday  evening  at 
7  P.-  M. 


so 


JttR.  MALE'S  ^IRGWMEJTT 
FOR  THE  CHURCH. 

IN  SENATE  April  2. 

Mr.  Hale  spoke  as  follows: 

Mr.  Chairman — In  addressing  the  committee 
on  the  momentous  question  now  pending  before 
it,  I  shall  endeavor  to  discharge  the  duty  involv- 
ing upon  me  in  as  brief  a  manner  as  possible. 
The  immediate  point  for  determination,  is  that 
in  relation  to  the  substitute  offered  by  the  Hon. 
Senator  from  the  6  th,  for  the  bill  reported  by  the 
special  committee  having  in  charge  certain  mat- 
ters pertaining  to  the  parish  of  Trinity  Church, 
in  the  city  of  New  York;  and  which  necessarily 
involves  the  whole  question  at  issue;  and  in 
which  light  I  shall  view  it  in  the  remirks  I  pro- 
pose to  make  for  the  consideration  of  the  committee 
With  the  mere  questions  of  fact,  involved  in  the 
voluminous  evidence  taken  by  the  special  com- 
mittee and  reported  to  the  Senate,  I  shall  have 
little  or  nothing  to  do;  for  the  simple  reason  that 
the  whole  matter  as  I  conceive  it  to  be,  is  rather 
one  of  law  than  of  facts,  and  in  this  view  of  the 
case,  I  am  happy  to  find  the  Hon.  Senator  from 
the  22d,  Mr.Noxon  and  myself  occupying  the  same 
general  ground.  The  Senator  in  addressing  the 
committee  a  few  days  since  on  this  subject  of  Trin- 
ity, used  the  following  language,  and  to  which  I 
call  the  attention  of  the  committee. 

"  Mr.  Noxon  looked  upon  the  repeal  of  the 
act  of  1814,  more  as  a  question  of  law  than  fact. 
He  did  not  look  upon  the  mass  of  the  testimony 
as  bearing  upon  the  real  questions  before  the 
Senate.  He  did  not  think  the  manner  in  which 
Trinity  church  had  exercised  the  power  she  now 
enjoyed  had  much  to  do  with  the  question  to 
be  decided  by  the  Senate." 

This  view  of  the  case  taken  by  the  Hon. 
Senator,  is  certainly  correct;  and,  hence,  it  is  not 
a  little  strange,  that  in  the  lengthy  remarks 
which  the  able  Senator  has  submitted  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  committee,  he  should  have  given 
far  more  attention  to  the  questions  of  fact,  than 
of  law.  Were  the  Senator  unlearned  in  the  law, 
this  inconsistent  course  of  the  senator  might  be 
excused,  but,  standing  as  he  does,  at  the  head  of 
the  legal  profession,  chairman  of  the  judicial y 
committee  of  this  body,  it  is  strange  indeed  that 
he  should  have  treated  the  question  as  he  has 
after  such  an  admission. 

Upon  this  view  of  the  case,  there  has  been  a 
concurrence  of  opinion,  whenever  the  subject  has 
been  before  the  Legislature.  In  1846  a  memori- 
al was  presented  in  behalf  of  certain  Episcopa- 
lians of  the  city  of  New  York,  belonging  to 
other  parishes,  complaining  that  the  officers  of 
Trinity  church  excluded  them  from  the  right  of 
voting,  &c.,  and  asking  for  the  repeal  or  modifi- 
cation of  the  act  of  1814.  This  petition  was 
presented  to  the  Senate,  and  the  committee  to 
which  it  was  referred,  reported  adversely  to  the 
prayer  of  the  memorialists,  Mr.  Clark,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  committee,  however,  making  and  pre- 
senting a  minority  report.    In  this  report  of  Mr, 


Clark  he  nevertheless  states  distinctly,  that  the 
question  is  one  of  law,  and  as  such  should  be  left 
to  the  courts.  On  this  point  he  holds  the  fol- 
lowing language; 

"  If  the  memorialists  possess  the  rights  that 
they  claim,  they  should  be  left  to  assert  and  vin- 
dicate them  in  a  court  of  justice,  since  it  is  the 
exclusive  province  of  a  court  of  justice  to  estab- 
lish the  validity  of  their  claims." 

In  the  succeeding  year — 1847 — Trinity  was 
again  dragged  before  the  Legislature,  her  oppo- 
nents presenting  their  memorial  at  this  time  to 
the  Assembly,  and  when  the  matter  was  referred 
to  the  judiciary  committee,  and  which  on  the 
30th  day  of  March  reported  unanimously  against 
the  petitioners.  In  this  report  the  committee 
take  the  same  view  of  the  case  in  relation  to  its 
legal  bearings,  as  had  been  taken  previously. 
The  committee  says: 

"It  must  be  manifest  that  any  action  what- 
ever on  the  subject  by  this  Legislature,  must  be 
in  efl^ect,  a  decision  upon  the  various  complicated, 
and  some  of  them  difficult  questions,  which  have 
been  presented  by  the  parties,  and  most  of  which 
have  been  stated  in  this  report,  and  particularly 
the  constitutionality  of  the  act  of  1814.  Your 
committee  can  not  discover  on  what  grounds  the 
parties  have  a  right  to  require  that  the  decision 
of  these  questions  should  be  transferred  from  the 
appropriate  tribunals,  constituted  for  the  express 
purpose  of  determining  them,  to  a  legislative 
body  created  for  purposes  entirely  diflferent. — 
There  is  no  question  of  public  policy  involved, 
nothing  effecting  the  interests  of  the  state  or  its 
citizens  at  large,  but  a  contest  merely  between 
one  set  of  men  w'ho  claim  a  right  as  corporators, 
and  another  set  who  deny  that  right.  The  Leg- 
islature is  not  the  tribunal  created  under  the  con- 
stitution to  settle  and  determine  private  rights; 
and  the  attempt  to  do  so  would  be  as  unwise,  if 
not  unconstitutional,  as  it  would  be  disastrous 
in  its  consequences." 

Such  being  the  true  state  of  the  case  why  is 
it,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this  question  is  now  en- 
grossing and  deeply  agitating  these  halls  of  leg- 
islation? Why  should  the  matter  be  considered 
here,  belonging  as  it  does  lo  courts  of  law,  rather 
than  to  the  halls  of  legislation,  and  where  the 
question  must  ultimately  be  settled  if  settled  at 
all?  To  such  an  adjudication  Trinity  church 
makes  no  objection  whatever.  On  the  contrary, 
she  courts  the  investigation,  and  had  it  been  in 
her  power  to  have  settled  the  controversy  by  the 
judgment  of  the  courts,  it  would  have  been  done 
long  ere  this.  Trinity,  however,  can  not  litigate 
with  herself,  nor  effectually  as  plaintiff  with 
the  pretended  corporators  of  other  parishes  in  the 
city  of  New  York.  With  these  corporators, 
however,  the  case  is  widely  different.  If  they 
really  desire  an  honest  and  final  settlement  of 
the  question,  there  are  no  difficulties  whatever  in 
the  way.  Let  one  of  them,  whose  vote  is  re- 
jected at  the  annual  election  for  wardens  and  ves- 
trymen, bring  his  action  for  thus  being  excluded, 
and  the  whole  question  is  at  issue,  and  in  less 
than  one  year  canbe  forever  set  at  rest.  Trinity 


31 


will  throw  no  obstacles  in  the  way  of  a  solemn 
and  speedy  adjudication  of  the  whole  matter. — 
It  is  said,  however,  when  this  course  is  pointed 
out  and  urged  upon  the  opponents  of  Trinity, 
that  she  is  rich,  and  that  no  one  individual  can  sus- 
tain a  law  suit  with  her  without  being  eventually 
ruined.  This  objection  is  a  mere  sobtifuge,  and 
shows  conclusively  the  dishonest  purposes  of 
those  who  make  it.  Have  they  not  thousands 
and  thousands  to  spend  in  besieging  the  halls  of 
legislation,  in  paying  numerous  hired  lobbies 
and  eminent  counsel?  It  is  said  that  there  are 
now  eight  thousand  disfranchised  corporators, 
and  who  feel  keenly  the  monstrous  wrongs  in- 
flicted upon  them  by  Trinity  church.  If  this  be 
true,  then  undoubtedly,  such  are  willing  to  con- 
tribute a  few  dollars  each  to  have  these  monstrous 
wrongs  annihilated,  and  in  which  case  all  the 
necessary  funds  to  carry  on  a  law  suit  would  be 
at  hand.  The  fact  is  this  cry  of  inequality  on 
the  score  of  means  to  litigate  the  question  at 
issue,  is  all  moon-shine,  and  only  made  to  cover 
the  real  objects  in  view.  This  is  the  more  ap- 
parent when  it  is  considered  that  the  Code  of 
procedure  has  ample  provisions  for  delivering 
all  the  material  allegations  made  against  Trinity, 
by  an  action  in  behalf  of  the  state,  and  in  which 
case  the  attorney  general  would  have  in  charge 
the  rights  of  the  pretended  corporators.  If  then 
litigation  is  avoided  on  account  of  the  expense, 
why  not  take  the  steps  pointed  out  in  the  code, 
and  have  the  state  of  New  York  the  plaintiff 
against  Trinity?  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  answer 
the  question.  It  is  because  these  men  well 
know  that  in  a  court  of  law  or  equity,  they  have 
not  even  a  ghost  of  a  chance.  They  know  full  well 
that  the  law  and  equity  of  the  case  is  all  on  the 
side  of  Trinity,  aud  hence,  their  only  hope  is  to 
come  some  sly  underhanded  "  grab  game'''  thro' 
the  halls  of  legislation. 

One  word  Mr.  Chairman  in  relation  to  the 
manner  in  which  this  question  has  been  sprung 
at  this  time  upon  the  legislature,  and  I  have 
done  with  this  branch  of  the  subject. 

On  the  very  heel  of  the  session  of  1855,  cer- 
tain resolutions  of  enquiry  were  introduced  into 
this  branch  of  the  legislature,  addressed  to  the 
vestry  of  Trinity  church,  and  requiring  an  an- 
swer thereto  on  or  before  the  seventh  day  of 
January,  then  next.  Why  these  resolutions 
were  offered  does  not  appear.  There  had  been 
no  previous  agitation  of  the  matters  of  Trinity 
during  the  session,  no  petitions  presented  pray- 
ing for  an  investigation.  Ostensibly  no  one  out- 
side the  Senate  hart  called  for  the  information 
required  by  the  resolutions. 

During  the  session  of  1856,  the  vestry  of 
Trinity  reported,  and  it  was — to  use  the  lan- 
guage of  the  honorable  Senator  from  the  22d— 
"  by  way  of  filling  up  a  gap  which  had  been  left 
by  that  church,  unanstoercii "  that  the  special 
committee  of  the  last  session  was  appointed. — 
Not  because  such  a  committee  was  particularly 
called  for  outside  of  this  body,  but  to  fill  up  a 
"gap."  And,  Sir,  it  was  not  until  the  special 
committee  had  made  their  second  report,  and  in- 


troduced their  bill  to  amend  the  act  of  1814, 
that  one  single  petitioner  from  the  injured  cor- 
porators of  New  York  city  is  placed  upon  your 
desks.  Why  this  anomalous  course — this  singu- 
lar course  of  procedure?  In  1846  and  7,  when  the 
subject  of  Trinity  was  before  the  legislature,  her 
enemies  came  up  openly  and  above  board,  and 
asked  for  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1814.  Not  so 
now,  however,  and  the  whole  history  of  the 
present  legislative  action,  indicates  a  new  spe- 
cies of  tactics — "  a  «e«)  hand  at  the  bellows" — 
some  wiley  politician  grown  fat  upon  schemes  of 
legislative  plunder.  Enough,  however,  on  thi« 
point.    I  proceed  to  another. 

Mr.  Chairman — I  have  at  the  commencement 
of  my  remarks,  laid  down  the  proposition,  that 
the  only  material  issue  in  the  question  now  before 
the  Senate,  is  one  of  law,  and  not  of  fact.  And  I 
have  shown  that  in  this  view  of  the  case  there  is 
a  concurrence  of  opinion  among  the  friends  and 
enemies  of  Trinity.  Here  then  is  one  price  com- 
mon ground  for  all — a  conceeded  starting  point 
in  the  all  important  investigations  before  us. — 
And  if,  indeed,  the  voluminous  evidence  reported 
to  the  Senate,  has  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  the 
real  question  in  hand,  then  this  whole  matter  is 
almost  within  the  compass  of  a  nut-shell.  It  is 
simply  this:  who  are  the  present  legal  corpora- 
tors of  Trinity  Parish,  and  as  such,  duly  entitled 
to  vote  for  wardens  and  vestrymen  at  her  annual 
elections?  This  is  the  true  question,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, and  which  I  will  now  proceed  to  consider. 

There  is,  however,  one  question  of  fact  in  the 
case,  and  about  which  there  exists  no  differ- 
ence of  opinion,  and  to  which  I  will  refer  in 
passing,  viz,  that  at  this  time  there  are  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  some  fifty  protestant  Episco- 
pal churches  besides  Trinity  and  her  chapels; 
and  that  these  different  churches  are  entirely 
independent  of  her  in  all  respects,  as  much  so  as 
that  of  any  other  church  of  the  same  diocese, 
each  parish  having  its  own  rector,  wardens  and 
vestrymen,  and  that  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Parish 
claims  no  power  or  right  whatever  to  control  or  in- 
terfere ill  the  parochial  affairs  of  these  numerous 
independent  churches,  and  that  those  who  clainn 
the  right  of  voting  at  the  annual  elections  of 
Trinity,  are  persons  belonging  to  these  indepen- 
dent parishes,  and  having  no  parochial  relations 
whatever  with  the  parish  of  Trintiy  church. — 
Now,  this,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  the  whole  case. 
On  the  one  hand  it  is  contended  that  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  every  inhabitant  of  the  city  of  New 
York,  in  communion  with  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal church  of  England,  although  having  no  pa- 
rochial connections  whatever  with  the  parish  of 
Trinity  church,  but  on  the  contrary,  belonging  to 
some  one  of  the  fifty  independent  Episcopal 
churches  of  the  city,  is,  nevertheless,  a  corporate 
of  Trinity  Parish,  and  entitled  to  vote  at  her 
annual  elections  for  wardens  and  vestrymen. — 
This  proposition  of  course  Trinity  denies,  and 
this  is  the  question  to  be  decided.  Before  com- 
ing directly  to  the  points  at  issue,  however,  I 
fehould  like  to  propound  a  few  questions  to  my 
honorable  friend  Irom  the  22d,  and  to  which  I 


32 


desire  an  answer,  if  the  Senator  has  no  objec- 
tion. 

First:  "Was  it  the  original  design  of  the 
royal  charter  of  1697,  in  incorporating  the  parish 
of  Trinity  church,  that  all  the  inhabitans  of 
New  York  city  in  communion  with  the  Protes- 
tant church  of  England,  should  be  voters 
at  the  annual  elections  of  Trinity  Parish?" 

Mr,  NoxoN;  I  answer  yes. 

Mr.  Hale:  The  honorable  Senator  answers  in 
the  affirmative.    I  am  of  the  same  opinion. 

Second:  "  Was  it  the  design  of  the  royal  char- 
ter that  all  the  subsequent  inhabitants  of  New 
York  city  in  such  communion,  should  like  the 
original  corporators  be  voters  at  the  annual  elec- 
tions of  Trinity,  without  any  further  qualifica- 
tion or  action  on  the  part  of  the  vestry?" 

Mr.  NoxON:  Yes. 

Mr.  Hale:  "  Was  it  the  original  design  of  the 
charter  that  none  but  such  as  belonged  to  Trinity 
Parish,  should  be  corporators  and  voters  at  her 
annual  elections?" 

Mr.  NoxoN:  No. 

Mr.  Hale:  "Was  this  ever  changed?" 

Mr.  NoxON:  Yes;  by  the  act  of  1814. 

Mr.  Hale:  The  honorable  Senator  having  with 
great  frankness  answered  the  several  questions 
which  I  propounded  to  him,  I  will  now,  Mr. 
Chairman,  come  to  the  royal  charter  of  1696. 
As  is  well  understood  by  Senators  around  this 
circle,  from  the  remarks  already  made  in  commit- 
tee, that  at  the  time  when  this  franchise  was 
granted  by  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  the  in- 
habitants of  New  York  city  had  erected  and 
partially  completed,  a  church  edifice  on  Broad- 
way, at  or  near  where  the  magnificent  structure 
of  Trinity  now  stands.  The  royal  charter  recites 
this  fact  among  several  others,  and  then  at  line 
118,  ordains  as  follows: 

"jiVoiii,  know  ye  that  in  consideration  of  the 
great  charge  that  our  said  trusty  and  well  beloved 
subject,  Benjamin  Fletcher,  our  Captain-Generall, 
as  aforesaid,  and  the  rest  of  our  aforesaid  loving 
subjects,  inhabitants  within  our  said  city  4"C., 
have  been  at  in  the  erecting  of  the  said  Church, 
and  laying  the  foundation  of  a  steeple,  and  the  fur- 
ther great  charge  that  must  unavoidably  acrew  for 
the  finishing  the  said  church  and  steeple,  and 
the  providing  it  with  suitable  ornaments  as  also 
for  the  erecting  and  providing  a  house  neere  the 
said  church  for  the  habitation  of  a  minister  to 
officiate  in  the  said  church  in  manner  aforesaid, 
as  well  as  of  our  pious  inclinations  to  promote, 
propogate,  and  encourage  all  our  loving  subjects 
within  our  said  province  in  that  reverend  and 
Godly  duty,  in  worshiping  and  serving  God  ac- 
cording to  the  commendable  rites  and  ceremonyes 
of  our  Protestant  Churcli  of  England  as  now 
established  by  our  laws,  have  therefore  thought 
fitt,  and  do  hereby  publish,  grant,  ordaine,  mani- 
fest, and  declare  that  our  Royall  will  and  plea- 
sure is,  and  by  these  presents  do,  grant  and  de- 
clare that  the  aforesaid  church,  erected  and  built 
as  aforesaid,  scituate  in  and  neere  the  street  cal- 
led the  Broadway,  within  our  said  City  of  New- 
Yorke,  and  the  ground  thereunto  adjoining,  in- 


closed and  used  for  a  Cemetery  or  Church  yard, 
shall  be  the  Parish  Church  and  Church  yard  of 
the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church,  within  our  said 
city  of  New  York,  and  the  same  is  hereby  de- 
clared to  be  for  ever  seperated  and  dedicated  to 
the  service  of  God,  and  to  be  applyed  therein 
[thereunto]  to  the  use  and  behalfe  of  the  inhabit- 
ants from  time  to  time  inhabiting,  and  to  in- 
habit, within  our  said  City  ol  New  York  in 
communion  of  [with]  our  said  Protestant  Church 
of  England  as  now  established  by  our  laws,  and 
to  no  other  use  or  purpose  whatsoever,  any 
statute  law,  custome,  or  usage  to  the  contrary 
in  any  ways  notwithstanding.  And  that  there 
shall  be  a  Rector  to  have  care  of  the  souls  of  the 
inhabitants  of  said  Parish,  and  a  perpetual  suc- 
cession of  Rectors  there," 

From  this  portion  of  the  charter  several  im- 
portant facls  are  clearly  seen. 

First:  That  the  church  on  Broadway  was  the 
parish  church,  and  church  yard  "  o/  the  parish  of 
Trinity  church,^''  and  that  said  church  was  to 
have  a  rector,  and  but  one  rector,  with  a  perpetu- 
al succession  of  rectors  there;  and  that  that  one 
rector  was  to  have  the  care  of  all  the  souls  of  tht 
inhabitants  of  the  said  parish. 

Second:  That  the  said  church  and  church-yard, 
and  the  rector  of  the  parish  were  created  for  the 
spiritual  good  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  Trinity 
Parish,  inhabiting  "/row  tiyne  to  time  the  city  of 
New  York.,  and  in  communion  with  the  Proteg- 
tant  church  of  England.'''' 

I  now  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  a 
further  extract  from  this  royal  charter  commenc- 
ing on  line  255. 

"  And  further  we  will  and  ordaine,  and  by 
these  presents  do  declare  and  appoint,  that  for 
the  better  ordering  and  manageing  of  the  affairs 
and  businesse  of  the  said  Corporation;  there  shall 
be  annually  and  once  in  every  year  forever  on 
the  Tuesday  in  Easter  week  two  Church  War- 
dens and  twenty  Vestrymen  duly  elected  by  the 
majority  of  votes  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  said 
Parish  in  communion  as  aforesaid." 

One  fact  is  sufficiently  evident  from  this  part 
of  the  charter,  viz,  that  the  church  wardens  and 
vestrymen  were  to  be  elected  annually  by  the 
inhabitants  of  the  parish  and  by  no  others. 

I  now  read  further  from  the  charter,  commenc- 
ing on  line  493. 

"  And  moreover  of  our  special  grace  oertaine 
Knowledge  and  meer  motion.  We  do  give  grant 
ratify  and  confirm  unto  the  said  Rector  and  in- 
habitants of  our  said  City  of  New-Yorke  in  com- 
munion of  our  Protestant  Church  of  England  as 
now  established  by  our  laws  that  the  said  Church 
and  Coemetry  of  Church  yard  scituate  lying  and 
being  within  our  said  City  of  New.Yorke  as 
aforesaid,  shall  be  the  sole  and  only  Parish  Church 
and  Church  yard  of  our  said  City  of  New 
York." 

From  this  impartial  extract  the  fact  stands  ou 
clear  and  conclusive,  that  in  accordance  with  the 
laws  and  usages  of  the   crown  governing  th 
English  church,  only  one  parish  was  contemplat 
ed,  and  intended  by  the  royal  charter  of  1G97 


33 


for  the  whole  city  of  New  York,  and  that  that 
parish  was  the  parish  of  Trinity  church. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  hi^re  say  a  few  words 
on  the  meanin?  attached  to  the  word  "parish." 
Mr.  Wise,  a  writer  on  this  subject,  defines  a 
particular  church  to  be  "a  society  of  Christians 
meeting  together  in  one  place,  under  their  proper 
pastors,  lor  the  purpose  of  religious  worship, 
and  the  exercise  of  religious  discipline — united 
together  by  covenants." 

Chief  Justice  Parker  in  the  case  of  Baker  and 
others  vs.  Fales,  says,  "  that  a  parish  is  the  same 
with  a  particular  church  or  congregation.  A 
whole  diocese  is  one  parish,  if  not  exceeding,  in 
ancient  times,  the  bounds  of  a  parish  or  small 
town,  or  a  part  of  a  town." 

From  these  extracts  which  I  have  made,  the 
following  facts  seem  to  be  indisputable. 

First  :  That  the  charter  contemplated  and  in- 
tendened  that  there  should  be  but  one  parish  in 
the  city  of  New  York. 

Second:  That  the  church  '■^situate  in  and  near 
the  slrtit  callei  the  Broadiray^'"  is  the  parish 
church  "  and  ^Hhe  ground  thereto  adjoinim;''^  is 
"  the  church-yard  of  the  parish  of  Trinity 
church." 

Third:  That  there  should  he  a  rector  and  but 
one  rector  for  the  whole  parish  of  Trinity  church 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  that  such  rector 
should  have  the  "  care  of  all  the  souls  of  the  in- 
habitants of  the  said  parish and  that  the 
said  parish  of  Trinity  church  was  to  have  one 
set  of  wardens  and  vestrymen,  and  no  more. 

Fourth;  That  these  wardens  and  vestrymen 
were  to  be  elected  annually,  "  by  the  majority  of 
the  voters  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  parish." 

And  from  all  which  it  necessarily  follows,  that 
to  constitute  a  legal  corporator  of  Trinity  parish, 
go  as  to  vote  at  her  annual  elections  for  church 
wardens  and  vestrymen,  as  required  by  the  char- 
ter of  1697,  the  following  qualifications  were 
indispensable. 

I  First:  The  individual  claiming  the  right  must 
jibe  an  inhabitant  of  the  city  of  New  York. 

Second:  He  must  be  in  communion  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  church  of  England. 

Third:  He  must  belong  to  the  parish  of  Trinity 
church. 

Fourth:  He  must  be  under  the  immediate 
charge  of  the  rector  of  the  parish  of  Trinity 
church,  who  alone  according  to  the  charter,  was 
to  have  the  care  of  the  ''sou/j  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  said  parish." 

But,  to  use  a  syllogystic  mode  of  reasoning, 
these  pretended  corporators  do  not  possess  these 
qualifications;  and  hence  the  conclusion  is  irre- 
sistible, that  they  are  not  entitled  to  vote  at  the 
annual  elections  of  Trinity. 

Do  they  belong  to  Trinity  parish?  Do  they 
worship  in  Trinity  or  any  of  her  chapels?  Do 
they  give  for  the  support  of  the  charities  and 
schools  of  Trinity  parish?  Do  they  contribute 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  rector  and  ministers  of 
the  parish?  Are  they  pew  owners  or  holders  in 
Trinity  or  her  chapels?  To  each  and  every  one 
of  these  questions  there  is  but  one  answer,  and 


that  answer  an  emphatic  negative.  Why  then 
should  these  individuals  claim  the  rights  of  cor- 
porators? Why  claim  the  right  of  voting  at  the 
annual  elections  of  Trinity  parish  in  New  York 
city  rather  than  the  right  of  voting  at  the  annual 
elections  of  St.  Peter's  church  in  the  city  of 
Albany,  or  the  right  of  voting  at  any  or  all  the 
annual  elections  of  the  numerous  churches  in  this 
state?  According  to  my  view  of  the  case  the 
one  is  not  more  preposterous  than  the  other. 

But  say  these  pseudo  corporators,  are  we  not 
inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  and  in 
communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church 
of  England?  And  does  not  the  charter  expressly 
ordain  and  declare,  that  Trinity  church  and 
church-yard  were  forever  separated  to  the  service 
of  God,  and  forever  dedicated  to  the  use  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  in 
communion  of  the  Protestant  church  of  Eng- 
land? Are  we  not  then,  corporators,  and 
voters,  by  the  express  provisions  of  the  charter? 
Certainly!  proviled,  always,  that  you  belong  to 
the  parish  of  Trinity  church,  and  acknowledge 
her  venerable  rector  as  having  the  care  of  your 
souls,  and  which,  not  being  the  case,  thpn  gen- 
tlemen, you  are  not  corporators  of  Trinity  parish 
— and  you  are  not  entitled  to  vote  at  her  annual 
elections.  It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
there  is  no  escaping  from  this  conclusion,  and 
that  the  proposition  is  so  clear  "that  the  way 
fairing  man  though  a  fool  need  not  err  therein.^^ 

That  it  was  the  original  intention  of  the  char- 
ter, that  the  parish  of  Trinity  church  should 
comprise  within  its  fold  all  the  inhabitants  of 
the  city  of  New  York  in  communi 'n  with  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  church  of  England.  I  have 
no 'loubt  whatever;  and  as  the  city  increased  in 
numbers  so  that  one  church  edifice  would  be  in- 
sufficient to  accommodate  the  parishoners  of 
Trinity,  'hat  this  inconvenience  should  be  reme- 
died by  the  erection  of  chapels  of  ease  at  differ- 
ent points  throughout  the  city ;  and  to  a  certain 
extent  this  original  idea  has  been  carried  out  by  the 
erection  of  chapels  belonging  to  the  parish  of  Trin- 
ity church.  Each  of  these  chapels  having  its  min- 
isteis,  but  no  separate  independent  organization 
— without  wardens  and  vestrymen,  except  those 
of  Trinity  parish  alone-,  and  their  respective 
congregations  b"ing  "  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New  York  and  in  communion  with  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  church  of  Enjland,"  were  parish- 
ioners of  Trinity,  and  as  such  corporators  and 
entitled  to  vote  at  her  annual  elections. 

After  the  establishment  of  a  new  order  of 
things  growing  out  of  the  war  of  the  revolution, 
certain  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  formed  under  the  general  laws  for  that 
purpose,several  new  parishes, entirely  distinct  and 
independent  of  Trinity  church. and  to  which  Trin- 
ity interposed  no  obstacles  whatever,  and  which 
have  been  increased  from  time  to  time  until  they 
number  at  this  moment  some  fifty  parishes,  with 
their  rectors,  wardens  and  vestrymen,  and  hav- 
ing an  aggregation  of  eight  thousand  or  more 
communicants,  and  who  now  claim  the  right  of 
voting  at  the  annual  elections  of  Trinity  parish, 


5 


34 


besides  the  indisputable  right  of  voting,  &c .,  at 
their  own  respective  parish  meetings. 

This  proposition  is  not  only  absurd  on  its  very 
face,  but  contrary  to  the  laws  and  usages  of  the 
church,  and  the  decisions  of  our  courts  of  law. 
On  this  point  the  learned  counsel  of  Trinity, 
before  the  Senate  committee,  well  remarked  as 
follows: 

"  It  is  an  established  rule  of  the  English 
Church,  that  a  person  can  be  a  parishoner  in  but 
one  parish.  By  the  2Sth  canon  of  that  church, 
unless  he  be  a  wayfarer  or  traveler,  he  is 
not  entitled  to  partake  of  the  communion 
except  in  the  parish  to  which  he  belongs, 
though  it  is  in  the  discretion  of  the  pas- 
tor of  another  parish  to  admit  him.  This  same 
rule  governs  every  Episcopal  Church  in  this 
country,  as  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  13th 
Canon  of  the  American  Church;  and  it  must  be 
conceded  that  such  a  rule  is  indispensable  to 
Church  discipline,  and  must  be  maintained  in- 
violable. Surely  the  English  Government  will 
not  be  supposed  to  have  been  willing  to  violate, 
by  any  charter,  so  well  settled  and  salutary  a 
principle  of  its  own  established  Church;  and  no 
strained  construction  should  be  put  on  a  charter, 
to  give  it  a  meaning  so  repugnant  to  the  probable 
intent  of  the  government  granting  it. 

So  too  in  this  country,  where  every  form  of 
religion   is   fully  and   equally  protected,  the 
government  will  not  be  supposed  to  have  intend- 
ed to  make  an  exception  to  its  beneficient  rules 
of  toleration,  in  singling  out  this  particular 
Church  as  an  object  of  unjust  discrimination,  and 
despotically  to  say,  it  shall  not  be  governed  ac- 
cording to  the  established  forms  and  usages  of 
its  faith,  by  a  vestry  chosen  by  its  own  pew- 
holders  and  communicants,  but  may  be  governed 
by  a  vestry  chosen  by  the  votes  of  those  who  do 
not  worship  within  its  walls,  or  kneel  at  its  altar; 
by  those  who  are  members  of  other  religious 
corporations,  and  aliens  to  this.    Will  the  law 
deprive  the  parishoners  of  Trinity  Church  of  the 
rights  enjoyed  by  every  other  Church  in  the  State 
of  every  denomination,  that  of  chosing  its  own 
officers?    It  would  be  a  deprivation  of  the  right 
of  self  f^overnment.    A  vestry  chosen  by  the  votes 
of  those  who  are  members  of  other  religious  corpo- 
rations would  select  a  rector  for  the  congregation, 
who  would  not  be  the  choice  of  the  parishoners, 
and  would  manage  all  the  affairs  of  the  corpora- 
tion with  reference  rather  to  the  interests  of  the 
Churches  to  which  the  voters  belonged,  than  to 
those  of  Trinity  church.     It  would  be  an  un- 
heard of  despotism,  thus  to  permit  one  set  of 
men  to  govern  another — to  control  its  spiritual 
as  well  as  temporal  affairs.    It  would  be  utterly 
at  war  with  all  our  ideas  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty. 

The  principle  that  makes  a  person  a  member 
of  but  one  parish,  and  responsible  to  but  one 
religious  society,  pervades  the  whole  Christian 
world,  and  is  indispensable  to  the  maintaining  of 
discipline,  and  preservation  of  purity." 

This  doctrine,  of  that  eminent  jurist.  Judge 
Parker,  is  fully  sustained  by  several  dacisions  in 


the  state  courts  of  Massachusetts,  to  one  of  which,   I . 
that  of  Baker  and  others  vs.  Fales,  1 6  Mass.  Rep. 
488,  I  would  now  refer  as  completely  covering  the 
whole  case  now  before  this  committee. 

The  facts  in  relation  to  the  matters  adjudicated  \ 
in  the  action  above  noticed,  are  brielly  these: 
The  "  first  congregational  parish  in  Dedham, 
Massachusetts,  was  the  owner  of  divers  tracts  of  J 
land,  given  at  various  times  to  the  parish,  for  the 
use  of  the  church  and  other  purposes  forever. —  i 
At  the  time  of  these  various  gifts  for  the  use  of  \ 
the  "  first  parish  "  in  Dedham,  this  society  was 
the  only  one  existing  in  the  town.    In  the  year  , 
18 18,  a  serious  difiiculty  originated  in  the  church 
on  the  occasion  of  settling  a  new  minister  in  the 
parish,  and  to  such  an  extent  was  this  unhappy 
controversy  carried,  that  the  society  was  rent 
asunder,  and  a  majority  of  the  congregation  left 
the  parish  church,  and  held  their  stated  meetings  ^ 
for  worship  in  another  place,  claiming  to  be  the 
original  parish,  and  as  such,  electing  their]church  ^ 
officers,  &c.,  &c.    The  action  in  question  was  |, 
brought  by  the   deacons  of  the  old  church,  to  ^ 
obtain  possession  of  divers  bonds  given  on  the 
sale  of  some  of  the  church  lands,  and  which  the 
defendant,   one  of  the  deacons  of  the  seceding  ^ 
portion  of  the  church,  had  taken  and  wrongfully  j, 
detained  from  the  plaintiffs.    Tnis  state  of  facta  ^ 
brought  up  for  consideration  the  interesting  and 
impo°rtant  question,  which  party  constituted  the  ! 
first  parish  in  Dedham.  The  opinion  of  the  court  ^ 
was  delivered  by  that  eminent  jurist,  chief  justice  j 
Parker,  and  who  at  great  length  examines  the 
various  questions  involved  in  the  cases,  and  pro-  ■ 
nounces  an  elaborate  opinion  thereon.  _  j 

The  reporters  note  to  the  case,  and  which  is  ^ 
fully  sustained  by  the  case  itself,  is  as  follows:  ^ 

"When  a  majority  of  the  members  of  a  con-  '  " 
gregational  church,  separate  from  the  minority 
of  tlie  parish,  the  members  who  remain,  although 
a  minority,  constitute  the  church  in  such  parish, 
and  retain  the  rights  and  property  belonging  to 
the  church. 

In  support  of  the  reporter's  note,  I  will  now 
read  an  extract  or  two  from  the  opinion  of  Chief 
Justice  Parker.    On  page  506,  he  says: 

"Nov/  property  bestowed  upon  churches,  has 
always  been  given  for  some  pious  or  benevolent 
purpose,  and  with  a  particular  view  to  some  b. 
associated  body  of  christians.     The  place  in  || 
which  the  church  is  located,  is  generally  had  in  ■ 
view  by  the  donor,  either  because  he  there  en- 
joyed the  preaching  of  the  gospel  and  the  ordi- 
nances, or  because  it  was  the  place  where  hig 
ancestors  or  his  family  and  friends  had  assem- 
bled together  for  religious  purposes.    These  as- 
.sociations  w  ill  be  found  to  be  the  leading  motive  ■ 
for  the  particular  direction,  which  his  charity- 
has  received.    If  he  gives  to  a  church  for  the 
general  purpose  of  promoting  piety,  or  for  the 
use  of  the  poor  of  the   church,  he  generally 
designates  the  body,  by  the  place  where  it  is 
accustomed  to  worship.     Thus  if  a  donation 
were  made  to  the  Old  South  Church,  Park  Streetil 
Church,  Brattle  Street  Church,  or  any  other  that 
might  be  thus  designated  by  local  qualities,  it 


35 


must  be  supposed  that  the  donor  had  in  view  the 
society  of  Christians  worshiping  in  those  places; 
and  as  this  donation  is  intended  to  be  perpetual, 
that  he  had  regard  to  the  welfare  of  successive 
generations,  who  misht  become  worshippins: 
Christians  and  church  members  in  the  same 
place.  If  the  whole  society  should  find  occasion 
to  remove  to  some  other  place  in  the  same  town, 
the  identity  might  be  preserved,  and  the  bounty 
enjo5'ed  as  he  intended  it.  But  if  the  church 
alone  should  withdraw  and  unite  itself  to  some 
•ther  church,  or  to  a  new  and  different  con- 
gregation, it  would  be  defeating  his  intentions, 
to  carry  the  property  with  them  and  distribute 
the  proceeds  in  a  community,  for  the  members  of 
which  he  may  never  have  entertained  any  par- 
ticular feelings  of  kindness.  It  being,  as  we 
think,  established  that  the  members  of  the  church 
who  withdrew  from  the  parish,  ceased  to  be  the 
first  Church  in  Dedham,  and  that  all  the  rights 
and  duties  of  that  body,  relative  to  the  property 
entrusted  to  it,  devolved  on  those  members  who 
remained  with  and  adhered  to  the  parish." 

In  the  above  case  Chief  Justice  Parker  con- 
tends with  great  force  that  inasmuch  as  the  vari- 
ous grants  were  made  to  the  Dedham  first  parish, 
at  a  period  when  there  was  but  one  society  in  towu 
that  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  they 
should  be  considered  as  having  been  made  for  the 
benefit  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  town  of 
Dedham.  His  reasoning  on  this  point  is  as  fol- 
lows: 

"The  presumption  is  violent  then,  that  almost 
if  not  quite  all  of  the  adult  inhabitants  of  Ded- 
ham and  other  towns  were  church  members,  and 
a  grant  to  the  church,  under  such  circumstances, 
could  mean  nothing  else  than  a  grant  to  the 
town." 

Yet  this  learned  and  eminent  jurist  says  em- 
phatically, that  all  such  grantees  who  leave  the 
parish,  and  unite  with  another  or  form  new 
parishes,  thereby  cease  to  have  any  interest 
whatever  in  the  property  of  the  church  they 
left."  ft-}  y 

In  proof  I  make  one  further  extract  in  point: 
"Since  the  grants  were  made,  parishes  have 
been  set  off  in  the  town,  and  other  churches 
have  been  established  withii^ these  parishes,  but 
a  reiiduum  has  ahvays  been  left,  and  have  thus 
become  the  first  parish,  and  have  lawfully  suc- 
ceeded to  all  the  rights  vested  in  the  inhabitants 
of  a  parochial  nature." 

Mr.  Chairman,  during  this  debate  we  have 
heard  much  said  about  vested  rights — the  vested 
rights  of  divers  Episcopalians  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  and  the  monstrous  wrongs  of  Trinity 
parish  in  derogation  of  those  rights.  I  shall  not 
•top  at  this  time  to  examine  this  charge  in  all 
its  bearings,  as  it  will  come  more  appropriately 
under  review  when  I  come  to  speak  of  that 
much  maligned  act — the  explanitory  law  of  1814. 
Before  leaving  however,  the  consideration  of  the 
charter  of  1697,  I  would  in  a  hurried  manner 
call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  one  further 
provision  in  this  royal  grant,  and  which  not  only 
disposes  of  this  question  of  vested  rights,  but 


also,  that  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  New  York 
city  in  communion,  ^c,  being  corporators  of 
Trinity  parish  for  all  time  to  come.  The  pro- 
vision of  the  charter  to  which  I  refer,  and  to 
which  I  would  now  solicit  the  attention  of  Sena- 
tors, is  from  line  564  to  575,  inclusive.  I  read 
from  the  charter: 

"  And  we  do  of  our  like  special  grace,  certain 
knowleHge  and  mere  notion,  give  and  grant  unto 
the  sole  rector,  au'l  the  sole  inhabitants  of  the 
said  city  of  New  York,  in  communion,  &c.,  full 
power  and  authority,  from  time  to  time,  to  ap- 
point, alter,  and  change  such  days  and  times  of 
meeting  as  they  shall  think  fit,  and  to  choose, 
nominate,  and  appoint,  so  many  others  of  our 
liege  people  as  they  shall  think  fit,  and  shall  be 
willing  to  accept  the  same,  to  be  members  of  the 
said  church  and  corporation  and  body  politic,  and 
then  votes  the  same  to  induct." 

It  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  the  charter,  by 
the  provision  therein  which  I  hav«  just  read, 
provides  for  the  choosing,  nominating  and  ap- 
pointing of  "so  many  others  of  our  liege  peo- 
ple," "to  be  members  of  the  said  church  and 
corporation,"  as  the  actual  corporators  should 
"  think  fit,"  and  no  more. 

Mr.  Chairman,  if,  as  generally  conceded,  the 
question  before  us  is  one  of  law  rather  than  of 
fact,  then  I  submit  that  the  decisions  of  our 
courts  should  have  the  same  controlling  influence 
with  Senators  around  this  circle,  in  considering 
this  momentous  question,  that  such  decisions 
would  have  been,  were  this  matter  of  Trinity 
in  the  Supreme  Court  of  this  state,  rather  than 
here,  and  hence  the  opinion  of  so  able  a  jurist  as 
chief  justice  Parker,  in  the  Dedham  parish  case, 
and  which  has  so  many  analogous  points  to  that 
under  consideration,  will  receive  that  due  con- 
sideration at  our  hands  which  it  so  eminently 
deserves.  And  what,  let  me  ask,  does  this  case 
decide?  It  decides  clearly  and  explicitly,  that 
members  of  a  religious  congregation  or  parish, 
seceding  therefrom,  do  by  such  act  forfeit  all 
their  rights  a?  parishioners,  and  that  the  "rm- 
rfuum,"  although  a  minority  of  the  original 
society,  are  nevertheless  the  legal  members 
or  corporators  of  the  parish,  and  as  such,  enti- 
tled to  all  the  temporalities  thereof,  without  re- 
gard to  the  seceding  members.  Hence  it  fol- 
lows of  necessity,  if  the  ruling  of  the  chief  jus- 
tice in  the  Dedham  case  be  good  law,  and  which, 
to  my  knowledge  has  never  been  called  in  ques- 
tion, that  the  Episcopalians  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  who  belong  to  other  parishes  who  have 
seceded  from  Trinity  parish,  have  no  interest 
whatever  in  its  estates,  and  have  ceased  to  be 
corporators  and  voters  at  the  annual  elections  in 
Easter  week.  Again,  if  the  doctrines  of  the  emi- 
nent jurist  whose  opinion  we  are  considering,  be 
indeed  the  law  of  the  case,  what,  let  me  ask, 
should  be  the  action  of  this  body  in  relation  to 
the  matter  before  us?  Ought  we  not  to  say,  as 
our  predecessors  have  more  than  once  heretofore 
said,  that  this  question  of  Trinity  parish,  so 
unhappily  sprung  upon  us,  has  no  business  here? 
That  it  is  a  question  appropriately  for  the  courts, 


36 


and  that  hence  we  will  as  soon  as  possibly  dis- 
miss the  subject  from  these  halls  of  lesfislation? 

It  will  be  remembered,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  at 
the  commencement  of  my  remarks,  I  propound- 
ed to  the  honorable  Senator  from  the  22d,  seve- 
ral interrogations,  among  which  there  was  one 
as  follows: 

'•Was  it  the  design  of  the  royal  charter,  that 
all  the  subsequent  inhabitants  of  New  York  city 
in  such  comm'inion,  should  like  the  original  cor- 
porators be  voters  at  the  annual  elections  of 
Trinity,  without  any  further  qualifications  or 
action  on  the  part  of  the  vestry?" 

And  to  which  question  my  honorable  friend 
promptly  responded  in  the  affirmative.  Now,  if 
indeed,  the  Senator  be  correct,  how  will  he  ac- 
count for  that  provision  in  the  royal  grant  which 
I  have  just  read?  If  all  of  the  inhabitants  of 
New  York  city  in  communion,  &c.,  and  all  who 
should  come  after  ihem  with  like  qualifications, 
were  per  force  members  and  corporators  of  Trini- 
ty parish,  whj  this  provision?  Why  the  neces- 
sity thereof?  If  it  be  true  in  point  of  fact,  that 
all  such  '"liege  people" — all  such  inhabitants  of 
the  city  of  New  York  in  communion,  &c.,  and 
their  successors,  were  corporators,  why  then  the 
useless  ceremony  of  choosing^  nominating  and 
appointing  them?  In  the  power  to  elect  there  is 
included  the  power  to  reject,  and  hence,  the  posi- 
tion that  all  of  the  inhabitants  of  New  York 
city,  in  communion  with  the  protestant  church 
of  England  there,  were  members  of  Trinity 
parish,  and  corporators  per  se  is,  in  connection 
with  the  provision  I  have  read,  simply  absurd. 

This  prominent  feature  of  the  charter  is  not 
there  by  mistake,  but  to  serve  some  important 
end  and  purpose.  And  what  end  so  all  import- 
ant as  that  which  this  clause  evidently  contem- 
plates in  the  admission  into  the  fold  of  Trinity 
parish  of  such  worthy  communicants  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  church  of  England,  being 
inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  as  shall  be 
chosen,  nominated  and  appointed,  and  who  shell 
be  willing  to  accept  thesmne,  to  be  members  of  the 
said  church  and  corporation."  It  seems  to  me 
extremely  difficult  to  expunge  the  force  of  this 
important  clause  in  the  charter.  Conceding  as  I 
have  all  along,  that  when  the  charter  was  first 
granted,  that  by  force  of  its  provisions,  every 
inhabitant  of  New  York  city  in  communion, 
&c,,  was  made  a  parishioner  and  corporator  of 
Trinity  parish,  but  it  does  not  necessarily  follow 
that  all  the  succeeding  inhabitants  of  the  city, 
although  in  communion,  &c.,  were  pcrie  such 
parishioners  and  corporators.  And  still  less  does 
it  follow,  that  were  such  succeeding  inhabitants 
shall  have  formed  distinct  and  independent  par- 
ishes, with  their  own  rectors,  wardens  and  ves- 
trymen, that  nevertheless,  they  yet  remain  cor- 
porators of  the  church  of  Trinity  parish,  and  are 
entitled  to  a  voice  and  vote  in  all  the  various 
proceedings  pertaining  to  said  parish.  Mr. 
Chairman,  the  idea  seems  to  me  so  utterly  ab- 
surd, that  I  can  not  account  for  the  opposite 
views  of  honest  and  high-minded  Senators  around 
this  circle. 


Mr.  Chairman,  I  now  have  finished  my  re- 
marks in  relation  to  the  charter  of  1697,  and  I 
now  propose  to  examine  very  briefly  the  state 
act  of  April  17th,  1784,  and  in  relation  to  which 
Mr.  Porter,  the  learned  counsel  against  Trinity, 
read  in  his  lengthy  argument  before  the  "special 
committee,"  that  upon  thit  law  the  Episcopalians 
may  safely  rest  their  claim.  And  I  say  as  em- 
phatically, that  upon  this  law  Trinity  parish  may 
safely  rest  its  claim.  Here  then  we  find  common 
ground  for  both,  in  a  statute  free  from  the  charge 
of  unconstitutionality,  and  to  which  both  parties 
appeal  with  great  confidence. 

The  paramount  objects  of  the  acts  of  1784, 
amending  the  charter  of  1C97,  was  to  conform 
its  provisions  in  some  respects  to  the  changes 
brought  about  by  reason  of  the  revolution,  and 
our  independence  from  the  control  of  Great  Bri- 
tain; and  also  as  being  declaratory  of  that  part 
of  the  royal  grant  which  related  to  the  corpora- 
tors of  Trinity  parish.  The  title  of  the  act  is 
as  follows-  "./^n  act  for  making  such  nlteratimis 
in  the  Charter  of  the  Corporation  of  Trimly 
Church,  as  to  render  it  more  conformable  to  tlie 
Constitution  of  the  Slate. 

To  the  first  section  of  the  bill  there  are  four 
preambles.  The  first  recites,  that  "  by  letters 
patent  under  the  great  seal  of  the  then  colony, 
and  now  state  of  New  York,  bearing  date  the 
sixth  day  of  May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 
thousand  six  hundred  and  ninety-seven,  many  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  mem- 
bers of  the  church  of  England,  were  erected  into 
a  corporation,  by  the  name  and  style  of  the  rec- 
tor and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  of 
the  Protestant  church  of  England,  as  by  law 
established." 

The  second  preamble  recites,  that  the  colonial 
Le/?islature  on  the  27th  day  of  June,  1704, 
passed  an  act,  entitled,  '  An  act  for  granting 
sundry  privileges  and  powers  to  the  rector  and 
inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  Y'ork,  in  com- 
munion of  the  church  of  England,  as  by  law  es- 
tablished." 

The  third  preamble  recites  that  those  parts  of 
the  charter  of  1697,  "which  render  necessary 
the  induction  of  a  rector  to  the  said  church  by 
the  governor,  according  to  such  instructions  as 
he  shall  from  time  tB  time  receive  from  his  Bri- 
tannic majesty,  and  such  other  parts  of  the  said 
charter  and  law  as  ai'mit  and  acknowledge  that 
rights  exist  in  the  bishop  of  London,  in  and  over 
the  said  church,  are  inconsistent  with  the  spirit 
and  letter  of  the  constitution  of  this  state." 

The  fourth  preamble  recites,  "  that  certain 
other  parts  of  the  said  charter  and  law,"  and  also 
the  colonia'  law  of  1693,  "are  contradictory  to 
that  equality  of  religious  rights  which  is  design- 
ed to  be  established  by  the  constitution  of  this 
state." 

Then  comes  the  first  section  ot  the  act,  repeal- 
ing so  much  of  the  charter  and  law  of  1704,  as 
relates  "to  the  induction  of  the  rector  by  the 
governor,"  and  the  "authority  of  the  bishop  of 
London  "  over  the  corporation  and  the  collection 
of  money  from  the  city  of  New  York,  "  for  the 


37 


Use  of  the  rector,"  ^c.  The  said  first  section 
also  enacts  that  "no  nonuser  or  nnisuser,  between 
the  nineteenth  day  of  April,  one  thousand  seven 
hundred  and  seventy-five,  and  the  passin?  of  this 
law,  shall  be  in  a  y  wise  construed  to  annul,  in- 
jure, repeal,  or  make  void  the  said  charter,  or  the 
said  law  first  above  particularly  mentioned, 
where  the  same  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  con- 
stitution of  this  state." 

The  second  section  follows  without  any  pre- 
amble whatever,  and  which  I  will  give  entire  as 
I  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  it  while  consi- 
dering this  act  of  1784: 

"  II.  And  be  it  further  enacted^  and  it  is  here- 
by enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that  the 
church  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  the  said  corpo- 
ration, or  a  majority  of  them,  be  vested  witti  full 
powers  to  call  and  induct  a  rector  to  the  said 
church,  as  o.''ten  as  there  shall  be  a  vacancy 
therein." 

Then  comes  the  all  important  preamble  to  the 
third  section,  and  which  I  shall  give  verbatim,  as 
well  as  the  section  itself. 

whereat,  doubts  have  arisen  on  those 
parts  of  the  said  charter  and  law  first  above  men- 
tioned, which  speak  of  inhabitants  in  communion 
of  the  said  church  of  England;  for  removal 
whereof, 

"III.  Be  it  further  enacted  by  the  authority 
aforesaid,  that  all  persons  professing  themselves 
members  of  the  Episcopal  church  who  shall 
either  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in 
the  said  church,  and  shall  regularly  pay  to  the 
support  of  the  said  church,  and  such  others  as 
shall  in  the  said  church  partakewf  the  holy  sacra- 
ment of  the  Lord's  supper  at  least  once  in  every 
year,  being  inhabitants  of  the  city  and  county  of 
New  York,  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  rights, 
privileges,  benefits,  and  emoluments,  which  in 
and  by  the  said  charter  and  law  first  above  men- 
tioneci,  are  designed  to  be  secured  to  the  inhabit- 
ants of  the  city  of  New  York  in  communion  of 
the  church  of  England." 

After  the  passage  of  this  act  of  1784,  its  provi- 
sions become  a  part  and  parcel  of  the  original 
charter,  and  so  remains  up  to  the  present  hour,  ex- 
cept as  changed  by  subsequent  acts  of  the  legisla- 
ture of  this  state,  on  the  petition  of  the  rector, 
wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  parish.  Not- 
withstanding the  enemies  of  Trinity  pretend  to 
have  great  respect  for  this  important  act,  and  Mr. 
Porter  in  his  interminable  argument  before  the 
special  committee  of  this  body  speaks  of  it  as  a 
law  upon  which  the  Episcopalians  of  the  city  of 
New  York,  belonging  to  other  parishes  than 
Trinity  church,  ^' may  safely  rest  their  claim,'''' 
yet,  after  all,  they  find  this  same  statute  most 
dreadfully  in  their  way,  and  hence  are  obliged  to 
resort  to  one  of  the  most  miserable  of  all  quib- 
bles to  destroy  the  force  of  its  provisions.  Even 
my  honorable  friend,  the  Senator  from  the  22d, 
notwithstanding  all  his  usual  fairness  in  debate, 
is  obnoxious  to  ihis  charge,  and  has  resorted  to  a 
species  of  subterfuges  which  he  would  hardly 
take,  even  in  pettifogging  a  suit  before  a  county 
justice.    It  is  urged,  and  with  seeming  sincerity, 


that  the  phrase  "  the  said  church,  as  used  in  sec- 
tion second  of  the  act  we  are  considering,  does 
not  mean  Trinity  church,  but  the  Episcopal 
church  at  large.  I  will  read  to  the  committee 
from  the  reported  speech  of  the  honorable  Senfi- 
tor  from  the  22d,  what  he  said  the  other  day  on 
this  point. 

"  It  is  claimed  by  the  present  corporation,  that 
in  the  third  section  which  I  have  read,  wherever 
the  word  "  church  "  occurs,  it  refers  to  Trinity 
church,  and  indeed  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that 
this  position  should  be  taken,  for  if  it  does  not 
refer  to  Trinity  church,  but  has  reference  to  the 
church  of  England,  it  is  most  apparent  that  the 
exclusive  right  claimed  by  Trinity  church  is  in 
derogation  of  that  act.  Now  it  is  most  remark- 
able, that  in  the  body  of  the  act  of  1784,  the 
words  "Trinity  church  "  are  not  to  be  found,  and 
the  title  of  the  act  which  speaks  of  making  al- 
terations in  the  charter  of  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  church,  was  clearly  an  assumption  of  the 
existence  of  a  corporation  which  never  existed 
by  charter  or  law  until  1814.  The  attention  of 
this  committee  is  called  to  the  reasons  expressed 
in  the  preamble  for  the  enactment  of  section 
three.  What  are  the  doubts  spoken  of  in  the 
preamble?  Are  they  not  upon  the  charter  and 
act  of  1704,  which  speaks  of  inhabitants  in  com- 
munion of  the  church  of  England?  And  when 
section  three  makes  provision  for  removing  these 
doubts,  is  it  not  an  imposition  upon  the  credulity 
of  men  to  maintain  that  the  word  church  refers 
to  anything  else  but  to  the  subject  matter  which 
the  section  was  designed  to  explain?  It  is  not 
necessary  for  us  to  go  beyond  this  act;  a  legisla- 
tive construction  is  given  as  to  the  corporators. 
The  provision  is  broad  and  plain,  that  communi- 
cants and  pew-holders  in  the  Episcopal  church, 
being  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  are 
entitled  to  the  privileges  and  emoluments  which 
by  the  charter  and  act  of  1704  were  designed  to 
be  secured  to  the  inhabitants  so  being  in  commu- 
nion." 

"The  applicants  for  the  modification  of  the  law 
of  1814,  by  virtue  of  the  act  of  1784,  have  se- 
cured to  themselves  rights  and  privileges,  upon 
which  they  can  rest  with  entire  confidence,  and 
I  most  cordially  invite  discussion  and  debate  upon 
the  provisions  and  spirit  of  that  act." 

The  first  thing,  Mr.  Chairman,  entirely  be- 
yond my  comprehension  in  the  extract  which  I 
have  read  from  the  speech  of  the  honorable  Sen- 
ator, and  which  I  can  not  reconcile  even  upon 
his  own  premises,  is  where  he  says  that  the  cor- 
poration of  Trinity  church  "ncner  existed  by 
charter  or  law  until  1814  "  And  then  a  little 
further  on  declares,  that  "  the  applicant  for  the 
modification  of  the  law  of  1814,  have  secured  to 
themselves  rights  and  privileges  by  th'S  same 
act  of  1784,  upon  which  they  can  rest  with  entire 
confidence. 

Again,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  acknowledge  my  en- 
tire inability  to  understand  this  novel  reasoning 
of  the  honorable  Senator.  If  the  royal  grant  of 
1696,  and  the  state  act  of  1784  were  so  com- 
pletely inoperative  that  no  corporation  ever  ex- 


38 


isted  by  them,  how  happens  it  that  this  same 
act  of  1784  has  secured  to  these  pseudo  corpora- 
tors of  New  York  city  such  indisputable  rights 
and  privile2;es? 

Again,  if  there  never  existed  a  charter  or  law 
until  1814,  and  the  act  of  1814,  entirely  pre- 
cluded the  Episcopalians  of  New  York  city,  who 
belong  to  other  parishes  than  that  of  Trinity 
church,  from  all  participations  in  the  estates, 
^c.,  held  by  Trinity  parish,  where  in  the  name 
of  common  sense,  will  these  disfranchised  corpo- 
rators find  a  grant  or  act  which  even  has  an  aw- 
ful squinting  in  their  favor.  Not  one!  for  no 
such  one  exists.  I  submit  therefore  that  my 
honorable  friend's  reasoning  is  inconclusive  and 
contradictory,  and  shows  that  the  Senator  when 
making  his  argument  was  "in  pursuit  of  knowl- 
edge under  difficulties." 

But  the  honorable  Senator  from  the  22d  says, 
that  the  word  "church,"  when  used  in  Ihi*  third 
section  of  the  act,  has  no  reference  to  "  Trinity 
church"  in  particular,  but  to  the  whole  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  church  of  the  city  of  New  York. 
This  position  is  by  no  means  new.  The  enemies 
of  Trinity,  when  they  fall  back  upon  the  act  of 
1784,  and  express  a  willingness  to  rest  their 
claims  on  the  provisions  of  this  act  alone, 
see  the  absolute  necessity  of  destroying  not 
only  the  spirit  but  the  very  letter  of  the 
statute  itself.  Mr.  Chairman,  let  lis  examine 
this  act  of  1784,  for  a  few  moments. 

It  is  a  well  established  rule  of  law  in  con- 
struing statutes,  when  the  intention  of  the  legis- 
lator is  in  doubt,  that,  not  only  the  whole  act  is 
to  be  taken  into  consideration,  but  also  the  title 
of  the  act.  This  rule  of  law  as  well  as  of  com- 
mon sense,  I  shall  observe  while  considering  the 
act  before  us.  The  title  to  which,  according  to 
my  views,  shows  conclusively  that  the  intention 
of  the  Legislature  in  passing  it  was  to  amend 
"the  Charter  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  church," 
for  the  title  reads,  "An  act  for  making  such  al- 
terations in  the  Charter  of  the  Coi  poration  of 
Trinity  church,  as  to  render  it  more  conform- 
able to  the  constitution  of  the  State."  And, 
hence,  there  can  exist  no  reasonable  doubt  of 
what  the  Legislature  intended  to  do,  when  it 
passed  the  bill,  viz :  just  what  the  title  declares. 

In  the  third  preamble  to  the  first  section  of  the 
act,  and  which  I  have  read  to  the  committee,  the 
word  "  church "  occurs  twice.  I  will  read  a 
portion  of  this  preamble  again.  "Jnd  whereas 
those  parts  of  the  said  charter  which  render  ne- 
cessary the  induction  of  a  rector  to  the  said 
church,  4-0.  The  word  "  charter,"  also,  is  named 
twice.  The  word  "said"  indicates  that  the 
'*  charter  "  and  the  "  church  "  had  been  previ- 
ously spoken  of  in  the  act,  or  in  the  title  to  the 
act.  By  referring  to  the  statute  they  are  found 
to  occur  for  the  fir.st  time  in  the  title ;  and, 
hence,  the  words  "  the  said  charter,"  and  the 
words  "  the  said  church,"  refer  to  the  charter  and 
church,  named  in  the  title,  and  which  is  Trinity 
church,  and  the  royal  charter  of  1697. 

In  section  second  of  the  statute,  power  is 
granted  to  the  church- wardens  and  vestrymen 


of  the  "said  corporation" — referring  to  the  cor- 
poration named  in  the  title  to  the  bill,  and 
which  is  "  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church," 
"  to  call  and  induct  a  rector  to  the  said  church," 
meaning  Trinity  church.  As  the  section  is  brief 
I  will  read  it  once  more  : 

11.  "And  be  it  further  enacted,  and  it  is  hereby  - 
enacted  by  the  autliority  aforesaiil,  that  the  church- 
wardens and  vestrymen  of  the  said  corporation, 
or  a  majority  of  them,  be  vested  with  full  powers 
to  call  and  induct  a  rector  to  the  said  church, 
as  often  as  there  shall  be  any  vacancy  therein." 

It  is  alleged,  however,  by  the  honorable  Sen- 
ator from  the  22d,  that  "  the  said  church,"  as 
used  in  this  and  otlier  sections  of  the  act,  does 
not  refer  to  Trinity  church,  but  to  the  Episcopal 
church  at  large,  or  church  of  England.  If  the 
Senator  is  correct,  then  where  the  words  "  cor- 
poration "  and  "  church  "  are  named  in  the  sec- 
tion, the  words  "  church  of  England  "  might  be 
inserted  without  doing  violence  to  the  section. 

Let  us,  Mr.  Chairman,  test  the  question  on  this 
principle.    The  section  then  will  read  : 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  and  it  is  hereby  enacted 
by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that  tiie  church-ward- 
ens and  vestrymen  of  the  said  church  of  Ens;land, 
or  a  majority  of  them  be  vested  with  full  power 
to  call  and  induct  a  rector  to  the  said  church  of 
England,  as  often  as  there  shall  be  any  vacancy 
therein. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  mere  stating  of  the  pro- 
position in  this  form  carries  with  it  its  own  re- 
futation. The  inducting  of  a  rector  into  the 
church  of  England  at  large.  It  shows,  how- 
ever, to  what  miserable  shifts  the  enemies  of 
old  Trinity  are  driven  in  order  to  compass 
their  unholy  designs. 

I  now  come  to  say  a  few  words  in  relation  to 
the  third  section  of  the  act  of  1784,  and  which 
is  exceedingly  important  in  two  particulars. — 
First,  for  the  reasons  expressed  in  the  preamble 
to  the  section,  and  which  is  as  follows  :  And 
whereas  doubts  have  arisen  on  those  parts  of  the 
said  charter  (the  royal  franchise  of  1697,)  and 
law  firstj  above  mentioned,  which  speak  of  in- 
habitants in  communion  of  the  said  church  of 
England  :  for  removal  whereof — "Be  it  further 
enacted,"  ^a. 

Second,  for  the  reason  that  this  third  section 
makes  important  alterations  in  relation  to  the 
corporators  and  voters  of  Trinity  parish.  I  have 
already  read  this  section  to  Senators,  and  where- 
in the  phrase  "  the  said  church"  occurs  three 
times  in  succession  ;  and  which  my  honorable 
friend,  the  Senator  from  the  22d  contends  does 
not  refer  to  any  one  particular  church,  but  to  the 
church  of  England  at  large — to  the  whole  body 
of  Episcopalians  wherever  found.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, let  us  look  at  the  material  parts  of  this 
section  somewhat  critically. 

After  reciting  the  enacting  clause  the  section 
commences  as  follows :  "That  all  persons  pro- 
fessing themselves  members  of  the  Episcopal 
church."  Here  the  words  "Episcopal  church" 
are  evidently  descriptive,  and  are  to  be  taken  in 
a  denominative  sense,  the  same  as  though  this 
part  of  the  section  had  read  that  all  persorn  pro~ 


39 


festin^  to  be  Epitcopalians.  The  Bection  then  goes 
on,  "who  shall  either  hold,  occapj  or  enjoy  a 
pew  or  seat  in  the  said  church,  and  shall  regularly 
pay  to  the  support  of  the  said  church,  and  such 
others  as  shall  in  the  said  church  partake  of  the 
holy  sacrament  of  the  LorJ's  Supper,  at  least 
onoe  in  every  year,  heing  inhabitants  of  the  city 
and  county  of  New  York,  shall  be  entitled  to  all 

'  the  rights,"  &c. 

The  preamble  to  this  section  sufficiently  indi- 
cates that  the  object  of  this  section  was  to  remove 
the  doubts  which  existed  in  relation  to  the  'in- 
habitants in  communion  of  the  said  church  of 
England.''''  Evn  then,  when  there  was  but 
one  Episcopal  parish  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
it  seems  to  have  been  seriously  doubted  whether 

I  all  "  of  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  in- 
habilin^,  and  to  inhabit  within  our  said  city  of 
New  York,  in  communion  with  our  said  Protest- 
ant church  of  Englancr^  were  corporators  and 
voters  in  Trinity  parish.  It  probably  was  con- 
tended on  the  one  hand  that  this  was  sufficient, 
■while  on  the  other  it  was  urged  perhaps  that 
conceding  these  qualifications,  it  was  neverthe- 
less necessary  according  to  the  charter,  that 
they  should  be  chosen,  nominated  and  appoint- 
ed.* Be  that  as  it  may,  it  is  sufficient  to  know 
that  doubts  and  difficulties  existed  as  to  who 
■were  corporators  and  who  were  not;  and  that 
this  section  was  drawn  to  remove  these  doubts 
and  obviate  these  difficulties.  And  it  is  to  be 
presumed,  according  to  a  well  established  rule  of 
law  in  expounding  statutes,  that  the  legislature 
had  this  in  view  while  passing  the  act.  On  this 
point  Col.  Throup  in  his  memorable  pamphlet 
justly  remarks,  "  that  in  expounding  a  statute, 
■we  are  to  presume  that  the  legislator  used 
words  in  their  most  usual  signification — that  he 
had  the  subject  matter  constantly  in  mind — that 
all  his  expressions  were  directed  to  a  reasonable 
lend — that  his  train  of  thought  was  uniform — 
land  that  he  intended  to  infuse  into  every-  part  of 
■the  statute,  the  same  spirit. 

■  Keeping  these  common  sense  rules  in  view, 

■  and  applying  them  to  the  interpretation  of  the 

■  section  of  the  act  we  are  now  considering,  it 

■  will  he  found  that  there  are  few  or  no  difficulties 
"  in  the  way.     The   great  leading  idea  of  the 

whole  act,  is  the  church  of  Trinity  parish.  Of 
this  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  whatever; 
and  hence  this  great  leading  idea  must  have 
been  "constantly  on  the  mind"  of  the  legislator 
and  when  in  this  section  he  uses  the  words  '■'the 
laid  church,"  he  had  reference  to  Trinity  church 
and  no  other.  If,  where  the  words  "Me  said 
churchy  occur,  there  be  inserted  ''Trinity  church" 
the  very  object  is  accomplished  which  the  pre- 
amble declares.  All  ambiguity  and  cause  lor 
doubt  vanish  at  once.  On  the  contrary,  instead 
of  the  words  "/fte  said  church,''''  insert  "Epis- 
copal church"  and  you  make  that  which  is  said  to 
be  doubtful,  not  only  much  more  so,  but  even  sub- 
limely ridiculous.  On  this  point  I  can  not  do  bet- 
ter, Mr.  Chairman,  than  to  read  from  a  pamphlet 
I  hold  in  my  hand  called  "a  -word  roE  TB.IN- 
*  See  charter  lien,  570  to  075, 


ITY  CHURCH,'  in  further  illustration  of  what 
I  have  said,  the  writer  says: 

"  Of  course  when  this  act  speaks  of  "a  pew 
or  seat  in  the  xiid  church'^  it  refers,  not  to  the 
"Episcopal  church"  in  general,  but  the  particu- 
lar parish  church  mentioned  in  the  title  of  the 
act.  The  contrary  supposition  is  simply  absurd ; 
for  what  is  meant  by  "the  Episcopal  church" 
clearly  has  and  can  have  no  pew,  or  seat  for  any 
one  to  hold  or  occupy.  Still  it  would  appear 
that  some  have  maintained  the  two  phrases  in 
question  to  mean  the  same  thing;  but  this  is 
quite  too  much;  it  involves  such  violence  of  in- 
terpretation, that  we  can  but  marvel  how  any 
one  should  either  believe  it  himself,  or  think  to 
make  others  believe  it.  The  avowing  of  such  a 
believe,  however,  can  nol  justly  be  taken  as  im- 
peaching a  man's  rectitude;  for  we  safely  affirm 
that  no  one  would  ever  venture  to  stand  respon- 
sible for  such  a  notion,  unless  he  had  first  per- 
suaded himself  of  its  truth." 

One  strong,  and  as  seems  to  me  unanswerab'e 
argument,  in  favor  of  the  construction  which  I 
am  giving  to  the  phrase,  "f/ie  said  church.''^  is 
to  be  drawn  from  the  existing  state  of  things 
when  the  act  of  1784,  was  passeJ,  and  the  effects 
resulting  therefrom.  In  giving  effert  to  statutes 
of  doubtful  import,  it  is  of  great  importance  to 
have  a  clear  understanding  of  all  the  contempo- 
raneous facts  and  circumstances  which  existed 
at  the  time ;  and  it  seems  to  me  that  much  of  the 
diverse  construction  which  has  been  given  to  the 
phrase  "«Ac  said  church,''^  has  arisen  from  a  dis- 
regard, or  non-application  of  this  important 
rule. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  the  22d  says,  in 
relation  to  that  section  of  the  act,  which  I  am 
considering  that  "  the  provision  is  broad  and 
plain,  that  communicants  and  pew-holders  in  the 
Episcopal  church,  being  inhabitants  of  the  city 
of  New  York,  are  entitled  to  the  privileges  and 
emoluments  which,  by  the  charter  and  act  of 
n04  were  designed  to  be  secured  to  the  inhabit- 
ants so  being  in  communion." 

I  shall  assume,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  when  the 
honorable  Senator  speaks  of  "  pew-holders  in 
the  Episcopal  church  being  inhabitants  of  the 
city  of  New  York,"  he  is,  nevertheless  to  be  un- 
derstood as  meaning  pcw-holiiers  in  some  particu- 
lar church  edifice,  as  it  would  be  doing  him  great 
injustice,  I  think,  to  say  that  he  means  by  "pcw- 
/ioWcrs  in  the  Episcopal  church, "  such  in  a  de- 
nominative sense,  merely  from  the  fact,  that 
such  a  construction  is  simply  ridiculous. 

It  will  be  remembered  by  gentlemen  around 
this  circle,  that  when  the  statute  of  1784  became 
a  law,  there  were  but  three  Episcopal  church  ed- 
ifices in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  that  these 
three,  according  to  Episcopal  law  and  usage, 
constituted  but  one  parish — the  Parish  of  Trinity 
church.  The  chapels  of  St.  George  and  St. 
Paul  being  but  a  part  and  parcel  of  Trinity,  with 
their  officiating-  clergymen,  but  destitute  of  rec- 
tors, church  wardens  and  vestrymen,  except  the 
rector,  ^c,  of  Trinity  church  proper;  and  the 
pew-holders  and  communicants  of  these  chapels 


40 


of  ease  belonging  to  such  parish,  and  being  cor- 
porators and  legal  voters  therein.  This  being 
the  case,  there  was  no  other  church  in  the  city  of 
New  York  in  1784,  in  which  the  inhabitants,  in 
communion  with  the  church  of  England,  could 
be  pew-holders  excepting  the  church  of  Trinity 
parish;  and  hence  the  phrase  in  the  third  section 
of  the  act,  "i/ic  said  church,''''  must  of  necessity 
refer  to  Trinity  church  and  no  other. 

That  such  must  have  been  the  construction  given 
to  this  third  section  of  the  act,  by  the  Episcopali- 
ans of  New  York,  contemporaneous  with  its 
passage  and  for  a  long  period  thereafter,  is  very 
evident  from  the  fact  that  no  dissatisfaction  with 
the  provisions  of  the  statute  evjr  occurred,  so 
far  as  we  have  any  knowledge  on  the  subject; 
and  yet,  none  but  pew-holders  and  communicants 
of  Trinity  church,  were  ever  admitted  to  vote  at 
the  annual  elections  in  Easter  week. 

We  have  seen,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  section 
of  the  act  I  have  been  considering,  was  passed 
to  remove  doubts  which  existed  in  relation  to 
the  corporators  of  Trinity  parish;  and  it  seems, 
for  a  period  of  more  than  twenty-five  years 
thereafter  it  produced  the  desired  effect.  Now 
if,  as  contended  by  the  honorable  Senator  from 
the  22d,  and  others  who  follow  his  lead,  that  the 
doubts  which  existed  in  the  charter  of  1C97  were 
removed  by  declaiing  that  all  pew-holders  and 
communicants  of  the  Episcopal  church  at  large 
should  be  corporators  of  Trinity  parish,  and  as 
such  entitled  to  vote  at  the  annual  elections  in 
Easter  week,  how  shall  the  fact  be  accounted  for 
that  such  right  was  never  exercised.  And,  if  de- 
prived of  this  right  by  the  vestry  of  Trinity 
parish,  why  patiently  submit  to  the  outrage? 
That  none  but  pew-holders  and  communicants  of 
Trinity  church,  were  ever  permitted  to  vote  after 
the  passage  of  the  act  of  1784  is  a  historical  fact, 
and  that  no  complaint  was  ever  made  until  the 
year  18 12  or  thereabouts,  is  also  as  certain.  In 
proof  of  this,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  read  a  few 
authorities.  And  first  I  will  read  an  extract 
from  the  petition  of  Trinity  church,  presented  to 
the  Legislature  of  this  state  in  the  year  1813, 
and  which  is  as  follows: 

"  That  since  ihe  passing  of  the  act  above  re- 
ferred to  (the  act  of  1784),  the  pew-holders  of 
Trinity  church,  and  of  the  churches  or  chapels 
belonging  to  the  said  corporation  and  the  regular 
communicants  therein,  have  been  the  only  persons 
admitted  to  vote  at  elections  for  church  wardens 
and  vestrymen  of  the  said  corporation,  according 
to  the  just  and  fair  construction  contemporane- 
ously and  ever  since  given  to  the  act." 

Judge  Parker,  the  eminent  counsel  for  Trinity 
before  the  special  committee  of  the  Senate,  in 
his  remarks  makes  the  following  statement,  and 
which  I  will  r(!ad: 

"No  one  has  ever  voted  at  the  vestry  elections 
of  Trinity  church  who  was  not  a  member  of 
Trinity  parish;  and  the  fact  that  no  one  out  of 
the  parish  so  voted  or  claimed  the  right  to  vote, 
from  1784  to  1812,  a  period  of  28  years,  shows 
a  contemporaneous  practical  constructioa  of  the 


act  of  1784,  which  in  a  case  of  doubt  should  bo 
conclusive." 

"The  fact  that  no  person  has  ever  voted  at  thfl 
vestry  elections  of  Trinity  church,  except  a  pew- 
holder  or  a  communicant  of  that  church,  has 
never  been  controverted.  It  was  not  denied  in 
1814,  nor  in  1846  or  1847,  when  applications 
were  made  to  the  Legislature  to  repeal  the  act  of 
1814.  But  we  have,  neverlheless,  not  neglected 
to  prove  it.  I  know  it  is  difficult  to  give  proof 
in  regard  to  transactions  which  occurred  sixty  or 
seventy  years  ago,  but  fortunately  we  were  able 
to  produce  before  the  committee  two  aged  men  of 
the  highest  respectability,  whose  truth  and  inte- 
grity will  never  be  questioned,  who  were  cun- 
nected  with  this  church,  and  active  and  zealou, 
in  its  interests  prior  to  1812.  I  allude  to  the 
venerable  rector  of  the  parish,  Dr.  Berrian  and 
the  Hon.  Gulian  C.  Verplanck.  The  latter  wit- 
ness was  examined  fully  on  this  subject  in  the  ab- 
sence of  a  member  of  the  committee,  Mr.  Noxon, 
The  rector  tells  us  that  he  never  heard  any 
claim  of  this  kind  being  made  until  1812.  Mr. 
Verplanck  was  asked  if  any  persons  other  than 
pew-holders  and  communicants  in  Trinity  church 
ever  voted  there?  He  answered,  "  never  cu  I  be- 
lieve." 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  now  done  with  the  act 
of  1784,  and  if  the  construction  which  I  have 
given  to  it  be  correct,  it  should  dispose  of  tl^is 
whole  matter  without  reference  to  the  subsequent 
law  of  1S14.  By  the  act  of  1784  it  seems  to  be 
clear  and  conclusive,  that  to  constitute  a  corpora- 
tor and  voter  at  the  annual  elections  of  Trinity 
parish,  it  is  necessary  not  only  to  be  an  inhabit- 
ant of  the  city  of  New  York,  but  also  a  commu- 
nicant of  Trinity  church,  or  a  pew-holder  there- 
in. But  these  enemies  of  Trinity  are  not  such 
commanicants  or  pew-holders,  and  hence  they 
are  not  corporators  in  the  parish  of  Trinity 
church  and  are  not  entitled  to  vote  at  the  annual 
elections  in  Easter  week. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  come  now  to  speak  of  that 
much  maligned  statute,  the  act  of  1814;  and 
which  I  shall  do  in  as  brief  a  manner  of  possible, 
for  the  reason,  that  at  this  advanced  stage  of  the 
session,  the  lengthened  discussion  already  had, 
and  yet  to  come  in  relation  to  the  affairs  of  Trin- 
ity church.  I  am  admonished,  notwithstanding 
the  vast  importance  of  the  matters  before  us,  to 
draw  my  remarks  to  a  close. 

From  a  history  of  the  facts  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  application  made  by  the  vestry  of 
Trinity  parish  in  its  official  capacity  for  the  act 
in  que.stion,  it  seems  to  have  been  called  for  on 
account  of  one  or  more  persons  belonging  to 
other  Episcopal  parishes  in  the  city  of  New  York 
claiming  to  be  corporators  of  Trinity  parish; 
and  as  such  offering  to  vote  at  the  elections  in, 
Easter  week  1812,  and  whose  votes  had  been  re- 
fused by  the  vestry,  and  which  adverse  action 
towards  them  was  immediately  followed  by  the 
Board's  adopting  a  declaratory  resolution,  setting 
forth  in  full,  the  necessary  qualifications  of  voters 
at  the  elections  of  Trinity  parish;  and  also,  by 


41 


forwarding  to  the  Legislature,  then  in  session  at 
Albany,  a  memorial  from  the  Board,  in  its  offi- 
cial capacity,  praying  for  the  passage  of  the  act 
we  are  now  considering.  The  resolution  of  the 
vestry  is  as  follows: 

"It  having  been  represented  to  this  Board  that 
certain  persons,  belonging  to  Protestant  Episco- 
pal congregations  in  this  cily.  which  have  been 
incorporated  as  separate  and  distinct  from  the 
corporation  of  Trinity  church,  and  who  are  not 
pew-holders  in  Trinity  church  or  any  of  its 
chapels,  claim  a  right  to  vote  at  the  annual  elec- 
tions for  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trini- 
ty church,  therefore  resolved,  as  the  unanimous 
sense  of  this  Board,  that  no  other  person,  except 
inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  who  pro- 
fess themselves  members  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal church,  and  hoM,  occupy  or  enjoy  a  pew  or 
seat  in  Trinity  church,  or  regu'arly  worshipping 
therein,  shall  partake  of  the  holy  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  said  church  or  one  of  its 
chapels  at  least  once  in  every  year  are  entitled  to 
vote  at  said  elections." 

I  deem  it  unnecessary,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  de- 
tain the  committee  for  the  purpose  of  relating  in 
full  the  history  of  the  declaratory  act  of  1814  in 
reference  to  Trinity  church.  By  the  prompt  ac- 
tion of  the  Board  on  the  rejection  of  the  votes 
offered  at  the  Easter  week  elections  in  IS  12,  it 
seems  to  have  been  considered  of  great  import- 
ance, that  a  legislative  construction  should  be 
given  to  the  charter  of  I G97,  and  the  act  of  1  7S4, 
in  relation  to  the  qualifications  of  corporators,  as 
speedily  as  possible.  In  this  I  differ  materially 
from  those  eminent  snd  high-minded  gentlemen 
composing  the  vestry  of  Trinity  parish  at  that 
momentous  period  of  its  history,  from  the  fact 
that  I  deem  the  rights  of  the  corporators  of  Trin- 
ity parish  too  plain  to  admit  of  doubt,  either  un- 
der the  royal  charter  in  its  original  state  or  as 
subsequently  amended  by  the  state  act  of  1784; 
and  from  the  fa'-t  that  this  legislative  action  of 
1814  seemed  to  admit  by  implication  a  doubt  in 
the  minds  of  the  vestry  on  the  issue  raised  by  the 
Episcopalians  of  other  parishes  of  the  city.  That 
the  vestry,  however,  was  actuated  by  the  purest 
of  motives  there  can  be  no  doubt  in  the  minds  of 
candid  men,  notwithstanding  the  labored  and 
wicked  attempts  that  have  been  made  here  and 
elsewhere,  to  impeach  their  motives.  And  here, 
Mr.  Chairman,  let  me  say  in  passing,  that  which 
I  did  not  intend  to  say,  but  which  the  present 
moment  seems  to  make  proper,  that  I  was  ex- 
ceedingly sorry  to  hear  the  sweeping  and  unwar- 
ranted expressions  of  my  honorable  friend  from 
the  22d,  in  relation  to  Trinity  church,  and  those 
well  known  gentlemen  who  administer  so  scru- 
pulously her  vast  estates,  and  against  who.m  the 
breath  of  calumny  has  never,  until  the  present 
hour,  been  directed.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will 
briefly  refer  to  one  or  more  of  these  unqualified 
denunciations,  coming  from  the  honorable  Sena- 
tor from  the  22d,  and  as  it  seems  to  me,  entirely 
gratuitous  on  his  part,  and  which  I  trust  may  be 
retracted  on  the  ^'sober  second  thought ''''  of  the 
Senator.    When  addressing  the  committee  a  few 


days  since  on  this  matter  of  Trinity,  the  Senator 
remarked:  ' 

"  I  might  stop  here  and  ask  one  single  ques- 
tion— Why  is  it  there  is  such  avidity,  such  greedi- 
ness on  the  part  of  the  vestry,  to  hold  on  to  the 
power  lodged  in  their  hands  by  the  law  of  1S14? 
The  honorable  Senator  from  the  31st  asks  if  Mr. 
Dix  and  Mr.  Verplanck  are  to  be  impeached  on 
this  floor?  No  impeachment  is  brought  against 
them.  The  charge  is  not  that  the  fund  is  con- 
trolled by  them.  Indeed,  they  have  resisted 
from  time  to  time  in  the  vestry,  the  acts  of  the 
standing  committee.  But  the  charge  is,  that 
others  hold  on  to  and  administer  the  funds;  and 
why  is  it  they  so  pertinaciously  hold  on  to  the 
church  property  and  lease  it  from  year  to  year? 
Probably  on  account  of  some  considerations  not 
yet  brought  before  the  Senate.  I  surmise  that  in 
these  same  leases  there  is  something  that  does 
not  meet  the  eye;  that  some  friend  stands  be- 
hind in  the  back-ground;  some  son,  or  father,  or 
brother  occupying  this  propei  ty,  and  making  a 
profitable  thing  out  of  these  leases.  I  ask,  what 
is  it  that  should  induce  them  to  hold  on  to  this 
property,  unless  there  is  something  that  the  pub- 
lic can  not  see?" 

•'My  honorable  friend,  in  the  course  of  his  re- 
marks, has  declared  that  consecrated  justice  is  on 
the  side  of  Trinity.  Where  can  it  be  found?  In 
her  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  corporators, 
who  have  wrested  from  the  other  corporators 
their  just  rights?  Tell  me  not  of  consecrated 
justice  from  those  who  are  steeped  in  wrong — 
Trinity  church  never  had  any  right  in  the  pro- 
perty she  unjustly  holds.  Where  is  the  grant 
giving  her  such  right?" 

"Mr.  Wadsworth:  It  is  in  the  charter.  The 
charter  gives  her  that  right." 

"Mr  NoxoN:  No,  it  does  not.  It  gives  to 
the  corporators,  not  to  the  church.  The  church 
usurps  it,  and  yet  the  Senator  talks  al)0ut  its  con- 
secrated justice.  Consecrated  justice!  why  I 
wonder  that  the  embellishments  that  surround 
her  churches  do  not  cry  out  in  judgment  against 
her.  Conscrated  justice  in  usurpation !  Conse- 
crated justice  in  daring  wrong!  Consecrated 
justice  in  robbing  men  of  their  rights!" 

Now,  Mr. Chairman, these  are  no  light  and  triv- 
ial charges  to  be  brought  by  a  senator  of  the  Em- 
pire state  in  this  place,  against  some  twenty  of 
its  citizens — against  such  men  as  the  pious  and 
venerable  Doct.  Berrian,  Gouv.  M.  Ogden,  Cyrus 
Curtis,  and  others;  not  to  mention  Messrs.  Dix 
and  Verplank  who  the  honorable  Senator  seems 
to  excuse,  or  rather  "  to  damn  with  faint  praise.'''' 
The  Senator  after  surmising  that  in  the  leases 
which  Trinity  parish  has  given  of  some  portion 
of  her  estates,  "  there  is  something  that  does 
not  meet  the  eye,'''  and  that  ''  'some  son,  or  father, 
or  brother"  is  making  a  profitable  thing  out  of 
these  leases"  asks  what  it  is  that  induces  them 
"Jo  holit  on  to  this  property,  unless  their  is  some- 
thing that  the  public  can  not  .«ec?"  some  friend 
standing  "in  the  back  ground  "  for  the  purpose 
of  helping  a  son,  father  or  brother  who  make 
money  out  of  the  "corner  lots'"  of  old  Trinity. 


6 


42 


Mr.Chairman,  I  am  exceedingly  grieved  to  learn 
that  the  honorable  Senator  has  no  higher  concep- 
tions of  duty  than  is  implied  in  the  interrogatory, 
which  1  e  has  with  no  much  earnestness  pro- 
pounded to  Senators  around  this  circle,  and, 
which,  in  passing  I  will  briefly  answer.  The 
gentlemen  who  compose  the  vestry  of  Trinity 
church  are  the  legal  custodians  of  a  vast  eleemos- 
ynary estate,  and  as  such,  bound  to  protect  it 
from  dissipation  at  all  hazards, — men  whose 
standing  is  above  suspicion,  and  whose  motives 
have  never  been  called  in  question;  and  who  have 
administered  the  great  trust  in  their  hands  in  a 
manner  unparalleled,  perhaps  in  the  history  of  the 
charities  of  a  world,  and  so  disinterestedly  in  re- 
lation to  themselves,  as  even  to  extort  the  admira- 
tion of  their  enemies.  Hence,  the  interrogatory  of 
the  Senator,  is  one  admitting  of  a  prompt  and  sa- 
tisfactory answer.  They  "/loW  on  "  to  the  estates 
of  Trinity  from  a  high  sense  of  duty,  faithful  to 
a  trust  which  a  good  Providence  has  devolved 
upon  them;  and  not,  as  the  honorable  Senator 
supposes,  to  enable  their  friends  and  relatives  to 
make  "  a  profitable  thing  out  of''  the  leases,  and 
other  property  belonging  to  Trinity  parish.  But, 
Sir,  enough  on  this  point,  I  have  largely  digress- 
ed, and  will  therefore  return  to  the  immediate 
consideration  of  the  act  of  1814. 

This  act,  it  is  said,  was  favorably  received  by 
both  branches  of  the  Legislature,  and  passed  with 
trifling  opposition  by  decisive  majorities.  Only 
one  remonstrance  appeared  against  the  bill,  and 
that  purporting  to  come  from  a  meeting  of  Epis- 
copalians convened  at  Mechanic  Hall  in  the  city 
of  New  York,  March  3,  1813.     Whether  the 
meeting  was  large  or  small  I  have  no  means,  of 
knowing,  but,  from  the  fact,  that  the  memorial 
is  signed  only  by  the  chairman  and  clerk  of  the 
meeting,  it  is,  perhaps,  fair  to  conclude,  that  it 
was  thinly  attended,  and  barely  sulficient  in  num- 
bers to  organize  and  adopt  a  memorial  to  the  Le- 
gislature.   This  is  further  evident  from  the  fact, 
that  out  of  the  nine  independent  Episcopal  par- 
ishes then  existing  in  the  city  of  New  York,  be- 
sides Trinity  and  her  chapels,  not  one  of  them 
took  any  part  in  this  famous  meeting,  or  in  their 
corporate  capacities  exerted  any  influence  against 
the  passage  of  the  bill;  on  the  contrary,  it  re- 
ceived the  hearty  support  of  some,  and  the  tacit 
consent  of  all.    This  fact  makes  with  such  irre- 
sistible force  against  the  pretensions  now  set  up 
by  the  opponents  of  Trinity  church,  that  to  do  it 
away,  they  have  resorted  to  the  most  miserable 
of  all  subterfuges,  viz:  that  these  independent 
parishes,  like  those  of  the  country  now,  were  all 
subsidized  by  the  munificient  donations  of  Trinity 
in  their  behalf,  and,  hence,  in  the  language  of  the 
"  select  committee,"  were  willing  at  that  time  to 
tuhmit^  inasmuch  as  they  had  all,  without  any 
exception,  received  liberal  donations  of  real  and 
personal  estate  from  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
church." 

Mr.  Chairman,  to  show  how  destitute  of  found- 
ation this  humiliating  assertion  is,  and  to  rescue 
these  churches  from  the  unmerited  obliquy  thus 
cast  upon  them,  I  will  read  to  the  committee  an 


extract  from  an  official  communication  eminating^ 
from  the  vestry  of  St.  Mark's  church  to  that  of 
Trinity  parish,  and  bearing  date  on  the  12th  day 
ol  April,  1S12: 

"We  have  learned  with  regret,  that  some  of 
our  Episcopal  brethren  assert  the  claim  of  a  gen- 
eral right,  for  all  the  Episcopal  churches  in  this 
island,  to  vote  at  your  elections  for  church-ward- 
ens and  vestrymen.  Whatever  color  may  be  given 
to  this  claim  by  any  ambiguous  words  to  be 
found  in  your  charter,  we  sincerely  take  pleasure 
in  declaring,  that  the  congregation  of  St.  Mark's, 
which  we  represent,  have  no  desire  to  assert  the 
claim,  and  that  we  will  at  any  time  hereafter, 
cheerfully  unite  with  your  respectable  body,  in  an 
application  to  the  Legislature,  if  the  measure 
shall  be  thought  expedient,  to  explain  the  charter, 
and  to  confine  the  right  of  voting  to  the  congre- 
gations of  the  churches  under  your  immediate 
government." 

Hence,  we  find,  Mr.  Chairman,  contrary  to 
the  sweeping  assertion  of  the  special  committee, 
and  the  opponents  of  Trinity,  that  there  is  one 
church  at  least,  that  in  1812,  was  willing  not 
only  "  to  subrnit  "  for  the  time  being,  but  also  for 
all  lime  come.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the 
parish  of  Trinity  church,  at  that  time,  had  no 
liens  by  mortgage  or  otherwise  on  the  property 
of  St.  Mark's,  and  held  in  terrorem  over  the  par- 
ish, to  be  enforced  on  its  running  counter  to  the 
will  of  the  rector,  wardens  and  vestrymen  of 
Trinity  church.  The  munificient  endowment 
which  St.  Mark's  received  in  1778,  was  given 
freely,  and  without  any  conditions  whatever.  The 
same  is  the  fact  in  relation  to  all  of  the  other  in- 
dependent Episcopal  parishes  in  New  York  city. 
Trinity  had  no  liens  whatever  on  the  large 
amount  of  lands  donated  to  them.  How,  then, 
could  these  pious,  free-will  oflTerings  efiFect  the 
action  of  the  churches  to  which  they  were  made'' 
particularly  in  a  case  involving  their  rights,  of  a 
character  exceedingly  momentous,  and  which,  to 
say  the  least,  were  liable  to  be  greatly  impaired 
by  this  silence  on  their  part,  involving  as  it  un- 
questionably would,  the  legal  presumption  of  a 
tacit  consent.  Again,  if  the  position  of  the  op- 
ponents of  Trinity  in  relation  to  her  corporators 
be  true,  then  these  churches  had  received  only 
that  which  belonged  to  them,  and  only  a  bare  pitt- 
ance of  that.  How  then  should  it  effect,  let  me 
ask  once  more,  their  free  and  perfectly  untram- 
meled  action? 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  now  read  to  the  com- 
mittee certain  parts  of  the  act  of  1814,  such 
parts  as  I  deem  material  for  the  occasion.  The 
title  of  the  act  is  as  follows:  "jln  act  to  allerthe 
name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in 
New  York,  and  for  other  purposes.''^  Passed 
January  25th,  1814.  Then  follows  the  follow- 
ing recital: 

"Whereas,  at  the  time  of  passing  the  act,  en- 
titled, 'An  act  for  making  such  iilterations  in  the 
charter  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church,  as 
to  render  it  more  conformable  to  the  constitution 
of  the  state,'  and  for  some  years  afterwards,  the 
said  corporation,  although  possessing  several 


43 


places  of  public  worship  besides  Trinity  church, 
was  the  only  incorporated  religious  society  in  the 
city  of  New  York  in  communion  of  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  church  in  the  state;  but  several 
other  religious  societies  of  the  same  denomina- 
tion, have  since  been  formed  in  the  said  city,  and 
duly  incorporated.  And  whereas,  by  an  act 
passed  the  tenth  day  of  March,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord,  17S8,  the  said  corporation  of  Trinity 
church  was  enabled  to  take  and  uie  the  name  of 
'The  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New 
Yo.k  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
church  in  the  state  of  New  York,"  which  name 
the  said  corporation,  by  their  petition  to  the  Le- 
gislature, pray  may  be  altered,  as  having  now 
become  improper;  and  that  such  further  legisla- 
tive provisions  may  be  made  as  to  remove  all 
doubts  respecting  their  charter  rights,  occasioned 
by  the  formation  of  other  religious  societies  in 
the  said  city  of  New  York.  Therefore 

"/.  Be  it  enacted  hy  the  People  of  the  state  of 
New  York,  represented  in  Senate  and  Assembly, 
That  f-om  and  after  the  passing  of  this  act,  the 
said  corporation  of  Trinity  church,  instead  of 
their  present  name  shall  take  and  use  the  name 
of  'The  Rector,  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen 
of  Trinity  church,  in  the  city  of  New  York.' 

"//.  jlnd  be  it  further  enacted.  That  all  male 
persons  of  full  age,  who,  for  the  space  of  one 
year  preceding  any  election  shall  have  been  mem- 
bers of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  church  afore- 
said, or  any  of  the  chapeh  belonging  to  the  same, 
and  forming  part  of  the  same  religious  corpora- 
tion, and  who  shall  hold,  occupy  or  enjoy  a  pew 
or  seat  in  Trinity  church,  or  in  any  of  the  said 
chapels,  or  have  partaken  of  the  holy  commu- 
nion therein  within  the  said  year,  and  no  other 
persons,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  annual 
elections  for  the  church  wardens  and  vestrymen 
of  the  said  corporation." 

Mr.  Chairman,  this  extract  from  the  act  of 
1814  contains  the  only  material  portions  therof, 
that  I  deem  necessary  to  bring  to  the  notice  of 
the  committee,  as,  in  it,  are  embodied  those 
alleged  alterations  in  the  royal  charter  of  1697, 
and  the  state  enactment  of  1784,  of  which  the 
opponents  of  Trinity  now  complain. 

The  special  committee  of  this  body  in  their 
second  report  stale,  that  they  have  come  to  the 
following  conclusions  as  to  the  effect  of  the  law 
of  1814,  and  the  rights  of  corporators  under  the 
several  grants  ond  acts  passed  in  relation  to  the 
said  corporation : 

"1st.  That  from  1097,  down  to  1814,  all  per- 
sons in  communion  with  the  church  of  England, 
or  the  Episcopal  church,  being  inhabitants  of  the 
city  of  New  York,  were  corporators  and  entitled 
to  vote  for  wardens  and  vestrymen,  and  under 
the  act  of  1784,  pew-holders  were  entitled  to  the 
same  right  until  1814. 

"2d.  That  the  act  of  1814,  excludes  all  such  per- 
sons unless  they  are  communicants  or  pew-hold- 
ers in  the  church  and  chapels  of  Trinity. 

"3d.  That  the  Episcopalians  at  large  in  the 
city  of  New  York  had  pre-existing  rights  in  the 
property  and  franchises  of  the  corporation,  under 


the  grants  and  acts  previous  to  1814;  and  the 
act  of  1814,  which  assumed  to  divert  those 
rights  without  their  consent,  was  unjust  and  un- 
constitutional." 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  shall  not  detain  Senators  by 
recapitulating  the  argument  which  I  have  already 
submitted  for  their  consideration  in  reference  to 
the  royal  charter  of  1G97,  and  the  state  law  of 
1784,  as  I  trust  it  is  still  fresh  in  their  recollec- 
tion, but  would  merely  say  in  passing,  that  un- 
less I  place  a  false  estimate  thereon,  it  shows 
clearly  that  these  conclusions  of  the  select  com- 
mittee are  extremely  erroneous.  If  in  this  I  am 
correct,  then  it  follows  of  necessity,  that  all  this 
noise  and  confusion — tfeis  newly  vamped  cry 
about  the  vested  rights  of  certain  Episcopalians 
of  the  city  of  New  York,  belonging  to  parishes 
independent  of  Trinity  church,  amount  to  just 
nothing  at  all;  and,  that  hence,  the  much  ma- 
ligned act  of  1814  does  not  impair  any  such 
rights,  and  for  the  best  possible  reason  in  the 
world,  that  these  individuals  never  had  any  such 
rights  as  corporators  of  Trinity  parish.  To  talk 
about  "i/ic  Episcopalians  at  large  in  the  city  of  New 
York'"  having  "pre-existing  rights  to  the  property 
and  franchises  of  the  corporation" — a  corporation 
to  which  they  do  not  belong,  and  do  not  even 
assume  to  belong,  is,  indeed,  the  sublimity  of 
impudence. 

Mr.  Chairman,  let  us  see  if  there  is,  in  fact, 
any  substantial!  difference  between  the  act  of 
1784,  and  that  of  I8l4,  so  far  as  these  acts  relate 
to  the  qualifications  of  corporators.  In  doing 
this  I  shall  assume,  that  which  has  been,  I  think, 
sufficiently  shown,  viz:  that  the  phrase  '■^  the 
said  church,''''  in  the  third  section  of  the  act  of 
1784,  has  reference  to,  and  means  Trinity 
church.  By  the  act  of  1784  all  persons  profess- 
ing themselves  members  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  who  shall  either  hold,  occupy  or  enjoy 
a  pew  or  seat  in  the  said  church  (Trinity  church) 
and  shall  rearularly  pay  to  the  support  of  the  said 
church  (Trinity  church),  and  such  others  as  shall 
in  the  said  church  (Trinity  church)  partake  of  the 
holy  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  at  least 
once  in  every  year  being  inhabitants  of  the  city 
and  county  of  New  York,  shall  be  entitled  to  all 
the  rights,  ^c." 

I  will  now  read  from  the  second  section  of  the 
act  of  1814,  and  which  relates  to  the  qualifica- 
tions of  corporators,  &c.:  ''AH  male  persons  of 
full  age,  who,  for  the  space  of  one  year  preced- 
ing any  election,  shall  have  been  members  of  the 
congregation  of  Trinity  church  aforesaid,  or  any 
of  the  chapels  belonging  to  the  same,  and  form- 
ing part  of  the  same  religious  corporation,  and 
who  shall  hold,  occupy  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in 
Trinity  church,  or  in  any  of  the  said  chapels,  or 
have  partaken  of  the  holy  communion  therein 
within  the  said  year,  and  no  other  persons  shall 
be  entitled  to  vote,"  &c. 

In  thus  bringing  the  two  sections  in  juxtapo- 
sition, and  understanding  the  words  "  the  said 
church  "  to  mean  "  Trinity  church,"  it  is  seen  at 
a  glance,  that  there  is  no  substantial  difference 
in  the  two  sections;  and  from  which  it  follows, 
that  the  Episcopalians  of  New  York  city  be- 


44 


onging  to  other  parishes  than  Trinity,  would 
have  no  };reater  rights  with  the  act  of  1814  re- 
pealed than  now,  and  hence,  according  to  my 
view  of  the  case,  that  portion  of  the  act  that  with 
so  nnuch  perspicuity  defines  the  necessary  quali- 
fications of  the  corporators  of  Trinity  parish,  is 
in  its  legal  aspect  of  little  or  no  consequence. 
As  an  act,  however,  giving  a  legislat've  con- 
struction to  the  third  section  of  the  statute  of 
1784,  it  is  of  great  importance  in  rendering  that 
sufficiently  plain  which  before  was  with  some  a 
source  of  formidable  doubt.  Again,  the  act  of 
1814  is  of  vast  import  in  legalizing  the  valuable 
grants  of  land,  belore  that  time  made  by  Trinity 
parish  to  the  nine  other  Kpiscopal  societies,  then 
existing  in  New  York;  and  also,  in  relation  to 
all  grants  to  be  made  subsequent  to  the  passage 
of  the  act,  to  other  parishes  independent  of  Trin- 
ity. Also,  in  confirming  the  agreement  between 
St.  George's  chappl  and  Trinity  parish.  But, 
excepting  these  latter  provisions  of  the  bill,  the 
act  of  1814  was  of  little  or  no  moment.  And 
hence,  I  might  at  this  point,  perhaps,  close  my 
remarks,  as  the  bill  introduced  by  the  committee 
does  not  propose  to  repeal  these  provisions  of  the 
act  of  1814,  that  relate  to  the  previous  and  sub- 
sequent donations  of  Trinity  parish,  &c.  1  do 
not  intend,  however,  thus  summarily  to  dismiss 
the  subject,  but  to  give  in  as  few  words  as  possi- 
ble, some  few  reasons  why  neither  the  commit- 
tee's bill,  or  the  singular  substitute  of  the  honor- 
able Senator  from  the  sixth  should  become  a  law. 

The  special  committee,  on  page  scventli  of  their 
second  report  to  this  body,  advance  the  following 
strange  and  as  seems  to  me  paradoxical  proposi- 
tionv.  "  It  is  contended  by  the  counsel  for  Trin- 
ity church  that  the  Legislature  have  no  power  to 
repeal  the  act  of  1814.  We  think  there  is  no 
question  as  to  the  power  existing  in  the  Legisla- 
ture to  repeal.  The  principle  is  undoubtedly 
■well  settled  that  where  a  law  is  in  the  nature  of 
a  contract,  and  where  absolute  rights  have  be- 
come vested  under  that  contract,  a  repeal  of  the 
law  can  not  divest  those  rights,  and  a  sovereign 
state  has  no  power  to  pronounce  its  acts  so  far 
invalid  as  to  affect  a  right  of  property  or  its  en- 
joyment which  has  become  vested.  This  would 
be  repugnant  to  the  constitution.  But  inasmuch 
as  your  committee  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
to  introduce  a  bill  to  amend  the  act  and  not  to 
provide  for  its  repeal,  this  question  does  not  pro- 
pefly  arise." 

Before  making  any  comments  upon  the  extract 
just  read,  I  will  bring  to  the  attention  of  Senators 
around  this  circle  the  bill  spoken  of  by  the  com- 
mittee, and  which  is  now  being  considered  along 
with  the  bill  of  the  Senator  from  the  sixth.  I 
will  not,  however,  detain  the  committee  by  read- 
ing all  of  the  bill  emanating  from  the  special  com- 
mitte"},  but  only  those  parts  that  I  deem  neces- 
sary for  my  purpose  in  connection  with  the 
extract  from  the  report.    The  act  is  entitled 

"An  act  to  amend  an  act  entitled  '  an  act  to 
alter  the  name  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
church,  in  New  York,  and  for  other  purposes, 
passed  January  25,  1814.' 


"  The  People  of  the  state  of  New  York,  repre- 
sented in  Senate  and  Assembly  do  enact  as 
follows: 

"Section  I.  The  second  section  of  the  act  en- 
titled an  act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  corporation 
of  Trinity  church,  in  New  York,  and  for  other 
purposes,  passed  January  25,  1814,  is  hereby 
so  amended  as  to  read  as  follows: 

'■^  2.  Every  male  inhabitant  of  the  city  of 
New  York  of  full  ase,  in  communion  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  church  in  the  state  of  New 
York,  who  shall  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or 
seat  in  any  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  said 
city,  in  union  with  the  convention  of  the  diocese 
of  New  York,  or  shall  have  partaken  of  the  holy 
communion  therein,  within  the  year  next  preced- 
ing any  election  for  church  wardens  and  vestry- 
men, to  be  certified  by  the  rector,  senior  warden, 
or  clerk  of  the  vestry  of  such  church,  shall  be 
entitled  to  vote  at  all  elections  for  church  ward- 
ens and  vestryman  of  this  corporation." 

This,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  the  amendatory  act  of 
which  the  honore^ble  committee  speak  in  the  ex- 
tract which  I  have  made  from  theii  report;  and 
which,  according  to  ihe  logic  of  the  committee, 
can  not  involve  the  question  of  vested  rights,  be- 
cause, it  only  repeals  some  part  of  the  act  of 
1814,  and  not,  forsooth,  the  whole;  or  according 
to  the  report  only  amends  the  act  of  1814.  Well, 
sir,  if  according  to  the  committee,  the  right  ex- 
ists to  amend  the  act  a  little  this  year,  then  a 
little  more  can  be  amended  next  year,  and  so  on, 
until  the  whole  act  of  1814  is  completely  changed 
by  amendments,  and  yet  steer  clear  of  the  formi- 
dable objection  of  destroying  vested  rights  by 
repeal,  ,^c.  This  argument  reminds  one  forcibly 
of  the  old  scholastic  logic  concerning  personal 
identity,  and  the  case  put  by  way  of  illustration  of 
the  continued  darning  of  the  silk  stockings  until 
the  original  stock  was  all  gone.  Will  the  hon- 
orable committee  contend  for  a  moment,  that  so 
far  as  their  bill  amends  the  act  of  1814,  that  it  is 
not  pro  tanio  a  repeal  of  that  act?  As  lawyers, 
the  majority  of  the  committee,  at  least,  will 
hardly  risk  their  professional  reputation  by  an- 
swering the  question  in  the  negative.  Nor  is 
the  amendment  a  trivial  one  as  viewed  by  the 
opponents  of  Trinity,  and  also  by  many  of  her 
immediate  corporators  and  warm  outside  friends. 
It  aims  to  increase  the  corporators  of  Trinity 
parish  by  adding  at  a  single  stroke  some  eight 
thousand  thereto,  to  control  her  elections  and  to 
dispose  of  her  estates.  To  create  within  the  church 
scenes  of  discord  and  contention,  at  the  contem- 
plation of  which  the  heart  sickens  and  the  feel- 
ings revolt.  And  yet,  the  committee  says,  that 
"  by  the  proposed  amendment  the  right  of  thejorpora- 
tion,  its  powers  and  franchises  are  not  to  be  dis- 
t urbed. ' ' 

Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  extracta  which  I  have 
made  from  the  committees'  report,  the  well  es- 
tablished principle  of  law  is  conceded,  that 
where  rights  have  become  vested  under  a  legis- 
lative contract  with  the  state,  that  it  is  repug- 
nant to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  to 
disturbe  these  rights  thereafter,  without  the  con- 


45 


sent  of  the  corporators.  This  position  of  the 
honorable  committee  is  most  certainly  true.  No 
principle  of  law  is  better  settled,  or  more  famil- 
iar to  every  lawyer.  And  hence,  as  the  com- 
mittee seem  to  fear  the  bill  introduced  by  the 
senators  composing  such  committee,  may  be 
obnoxious  to  this  charge,  they  have  made  the 
exceedingly  silly  attempt  to  keep  the  fact  out  of 
sight,  by  the  miserable  quibble,  that  in  the  bill 
they  have  introduced,  this  question  can  not 
arise,  for  the  reason  that  there  is  no  provision 
therein  to  repeal  the  act  of  1814,  but  only  to 
amend.  In  all  frankness,  sir,  I  must  say,  that 
this  is  entirely  unworthy  of  the  honorable  sena- 
tors composing  the  special  committee. 

The  royal  charter  of  1697  was  a  contrict  be- 
tween the  crown  of  Great  Britain  and  the  Parish 
of  Trinity  Church,  with  the  concurrence  of  both 
parties,  and  all  the  subsequent  amendments, 
whether  with  the  crown  or  the  state  of  New 
York  through  its  legislature,  with  the  consent  of 
the  corporators,  became  a  part  and  parcel  of  the 
charter,  equally  as  much  as  though  an  original 
provision  therein ;  and  the  charter  thus  amend- 
ed can  not  be  repealed,  nor  again  amended  by 
the  legislature,  without  the  consent  of  the  Ves- 
try of  Trinity  church,  who  represent  the  corpo- 
rators. The  legislative  contracts  of  a  state  with 
individuals,  are  of  the  same  general  nature  as 
those  with  individuals  alone.  In  this  respect  a 
sovereign  state  has  no  superior  right  over  the 
humblest  of  her  citizens.  Between  individuals 
the  consent  of  all  parties  to  a  contract  is  neces- 
sary to  its  alteration  or  abandonment,  and  courts, 
although  having  power  to  place  such  construc- 
tion upon  contracts  as  they  shall  deem  right,  yet 
they  have  no  power  to  alter  in  the  slightest  par- 
ticular, the  contracts  themselves — or  in  other 
words,  they  haw  no  right  to  make  a  different 
(contract  for  the  parties,  than  the  parties  have 
Itoiade  for  themselves,  however  onerous  some 
<0f  the  provisions  may  be.  In  all  such  cases, 
iwhether  between  individuals  alone,  or  between 
Mi  state  on  the  one  part,  and  her  citizens  on  the 
f  other,  individually  or  in  a  corporate  capacity, 
f  the  mutual  consent  of  all  is  absolutely  necessary 
to  any  alterations  in  such  contracts;  and,  since 
the  elaborate  opinion  of  the  United  States  Court 
in  the  case  of  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward, 
this  principle  of  law  and  common  sense,  has 
been  well  understood  and  constantly  acted  upon; 
Wd  hence,  since  the  decision  in  the  College 
case,  it  has  been  the  invariable  practice  in  the 
legislature  of  this  state,  and  I  presume  in  all 
other  states  of  the  Union,  in  the  granting  of 
private  charters,  *o  insert  therein  a  provision 
reserving  to  the  state  the  power  to  amend  or  re- 
peal the  charter  granted,  whenever  the  legislature 
shall  deem  it  expedient.  It  is  unnecessary,  per- 
haps, (or  me  to  say  to  senators  around  this  cir- 
cle, that  the  royal  charter  of  1697  has  no  reser- 
ving clause  of  this  nature. 
The  bill  now  under  consideration, Mr.Chairman, 
seeks  to  amend  the  charter  of  1G97,  in  one  ex- 
ceeding important  particular,  and  unlike  the 
facts  connected  with  the  passage  of  the  act  of 
1814,  is  before  us,  not  at  the  .request,  but 


as^ainst  the  wishes  of  the  corporators  of  Trinity 
parish,  who  through  the  vestry  are  found  earn- 
estly remonstrating  against  it.  The  act  of  1814 
became  a  law  on  the  application  of  Trinity  in 
her  corporate  capacity.  It  was  a  mutual  agree- 
ment between  the  high  contracting  parties.  It 
was  asked  for  on  the  one  hand,  and  conceded  on 
the  other,  and  can  never  be  repealed  or  amend- 
ed, except  by  the  same  parties.  This  is  beyond 
controversy,  unless  the  decisions  of  our  courts, 
and  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  are 
mere  bagatelles.  The  bill  introduced  by  the 
honorable  committee,  amendatory  of  the  act  of 
1814,  if  indeed  asked  for  at  all,  comes  from  the 
enemies  of  Trinity  parish.  Pass  the  bill  into  a 
law,  and  if  it  be  possible  to  destroy  vested 
rights,  and  impair  the  obligations  of  a  contract 
by  legislative  action,  the  thing  is  done  at  once. 

I  freely  concede,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  a  wide 
distinction  exists  between  private  and  public  cor- 
porations, and  on  this  point  I  will  present  my  own 
views  to  this  body  in  the  lan«;uage  of  that  emi- 
nent jurist,  Hon.  A.  J-  Parker,  and  who  ap- 
peared before  the  special  committee  of  the  Sen- 
ate in  the  capacity  of  counsel  for  Trinity  par- 
ish. Says  Judge  Parker  in  his  eloquent  and 
unanswerable  argument : 

"  The  rule  of  law  I  have  been  considering,  ns 
settled  by  the  Dartmouth  College  case,  is  appli- 
cable to  private,  not  to  public  or  municipal  cor- 
porations (4  Wheaton,  518).  It  will  not  be  de- 
nied but  that  Trinity  Church  is  a  private  corpo- 
rations. Every  corporation  is  private,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  public,  unless  the  whole  inter- 
est belongs  to  the  government  or  is  vested  with 
the  municipal  or  political  power.  This  is  the 
definition  given  in  Riindel  vs.  Del.  and  R.  Ca- 
nal, 1  Wallace  C.  C.  R.,  275;  see  also  2  Kent, 
305,  7th  ed.,  note  1.  I  concede,  that  in  regard 
to  public  or  municipal  corporations,such  as  cities, 
towns  and  villages,  the  legislature  has  full  pow- 
er to  repeal  or  amend,  and  without  the  consent 
of  the  corporators ;  but  that  power  does  not 
extend  to  private  corporations,  such  as  colleges, 
churches,  academies,  &c.;  all  these  come  within 
the  law  as  adjudged  in  the  Darthmouth  College 
case." 

Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  one  other  reason  why 
this  act  of  1814  should  not  at  this  late  day  be 
amended  or  repealed,  and  which  in  closing 
what  I  have  to  say  on  lhat  e.xplanatory  act,  I 
will  briefly  call  to  the  notice  of  Senators,  and  that 
is  the  great  length  of  time  which  has  elapsed 
since  its  passage,  and  been  acquiesced  in  by  those 
who  now  are  "compassing  heaven  and  earth"  to 
effect  its  repeal.  While  at  the  period  the  Leg- 
islature was  considering  the  bill  in  1813,  some 
opposition  was  manifested,  yet,  immediately  on 
its  passage,  this  wholly,  ceased ;  and  for  a  period 
of  more  than  thirty  years  neither  the  halls  of 
legislation,  nor  the  annual  election  polls  of  Trin- 
ity, were  besieged  by  these  men,  who  now  de- 
sire with  such  greedy  longings,  the  consecrated 
estates  of  "old  Trinity;"  anl  who  now  pander 
to  the  selfishness  of  the  human  heart  by  the  cor- 
morant cry  '■■there  is  enough  for  a?!." 

This  acquiescence  on  the  part  of  the  enemies  of 


I 


46 


Trinity  should  be  taken  as  I  conceive,  as  conclu- 
sive against  them ;  there  should  be  Sonne  limit  to 
the  period  when  questions  of  this  nature  may  be 
agitated  in  legislative  bodies,  as  well  as  in  courts 
of  justice.  lam  well  aware,  Sir,  that  there  is 
DO  statutory  provision  directly  applicable 
to  the  case  in  hand  while  passing  in  review 
before  this  body;  but,  as  grave  questions  of  law, 
are  involved,  and  as  the  action  of  the  Legislature 
must  to  some  extent  at  least  partake  of  a  judi- 
cial character,  it  seems  eminently  proper  that  the 
various  statutes  of  repose  and  the  adjudications 
of  the  courts  thereon  should  have  great  weight 
■with  the  Senators  around  this  circle.  Although 
in  given  cases  the  statute  of  limitations  like  the 
statute  of  frauds  may  operate  with  great  hard- 
ships, yet  as  a  general  statute,  the  experience  of 
centuries  has  shown  it  to  be  one  of  the  most  be- 
neficent that  the  wisdom  of  man  has  ever  de- 
vised. In  the  celebrated  "Winchelsea  cases,"  it 
was  held  by  Lord  Mansfield  (4  Burn,  1062)  that 
twenty  years  of  quiet  and  unimpeachable  pos- 
session of  a  corporate  franchise  was  conclusive 
evidence  of  right  against  all  adverse  claimants 
whatsoever.  This  ruling  of  the  great  English 
jurist  has  never  been,  to  my  knowledge  departed 
from,  and  is  good  law  at  this  day  not  only  in 
England,  but  in  this  country  also.  If,  then, 
Mr.  Chairman,  such  is  the  law,  such  the  adju- 
dications of  the  courts,  and  if  as  I  have  stated 
the  question  before  us  involves  the  consideration 
of  this  same  law,  how  shall  we  escape  its  binding 
force  and  authority?  And  if,  as  Senators  of  the 
State  of  New  York  acting  under  the  solemn  res- 
ponsibilities of  an  oath  we  shall  act  counter  to 
these  high  and  binding  authorities,  how  shall  we 
answer  to  our  consciences  hereafter,  when  upon 
cool  and  dispassionate  reflection,  we  shall  be  con- 
vinced that  our  action  on  this  momentous  ques- 
tion, was  not  only  contrary  to  the  statutes  of  the 
State,  but  to  the  solemn  adjudications  of  the 
courts  thereon.  This  binding  inftuence  of  statu- 
tory and  common  law,  was  felt  and  acted  upon 
by  our  predecessors  in  these  halls  of  legislation 
in  1847,  when  this  same  question  was  under  con- 
sideration, and,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  can  not  refrain 
from  reading  to  Senators  a  somewhat  lengthy 
extract  from  the  very  able  report  of  the 
Assembly  committee,  to  which  was  referred 
the  various  petitions  of  certain  Episcopa- 
lians in  the  city  of  New  York,  asking  for  the  re- 
peal or  modification  of  the  act  of  1814.  The 
committee  say: 

The  fact  of  an  acquiescence  for  more  than 
thirty  years  in  the  provision,  which  thus,  as  the 
memorialists  allege,  deprived  them  of  existing 
rights,  and  disfranchised  them  as  corporators,  is 
relied  upon  by  the  remonstrants,  as  an  unanswer- 
able objection  to  the  prayer  of  the  petition. — 
They  insist  that  the  same  reasons  of  public  pol- 
icy which  prescribe  limitations  to  controversies 
in  courts  of  justice  between  private  parties  are 
strictly  applicable  to  this  case;  and  that  those 
who  have  so  long  submitted  to  what  they  now 
allege  to  have  been  an  invasion  of  their  rights, 
while  the  means  of  redress  were  abundant  and 


were  open  to  them,  can  not  now  be  heard  in  the 
application  which  they  make  to  the  legislative 
power.  The  chief  answers  which  have  been  made 
to  this  ob|ection,  are,  that  the  limitations  referred 
to  are  technical  rules,  applicable  only  to  courts 
of  justice,  and  not  to  legislative  action  ;  and  that 
the  mere  omission  to  exercise  a  right  is  not  a 
waiver  of  it.  Viewing  this  as  a  mere  private  con- 
troversy between  individuals,  relating  to  per- 
sonal privileges  claimed  by  one  set  and  denied  by 
the  other,  which  the  ordinary  courts  of  justice 
now  are,  and  at  all  times  have  been  entirely  com- 
petent to  determine,  the  committee  are  unable  to 
perceive  why  it  should  not  be  subject  to  the  same 
general  rules  for  promoting  peace  and  quiet,  and 
terminating  litigation  which  would  be  applica- 
ble to  it  if  agitated  in  its  proper  tribunal;  at 
least  they  think  such  a  principle  a  safe  guide  for 
legislation  generally  and  they  see  nothing  in  this 
case  to  exempt  it  from  the  general  rule.  There 
has  been  no  impediment  or  obstruction  to  the  reg- 
ular and  usual  jurisdicticn  of  the  courts,  and  no 
reason  has  been  assigned  why  resort  has  not 
been  to  them  in  some  of  the  various  forms  which 
would  have  afforded  ample  redress  for  any 
wrong." 

"The  case  does  not  present  a  mere  occasion  to 
exercise  an  unquestionable  right,  but  a  submis- 
sion to  and  acquiescence  in  what  is  alleged  to 
have  been  a  gross  wrong.  The  doctrine  of  ac- 
quiescence is  not  and  cannot  be  applied  to  any 
other  case;  the  question  can  not  arise  until  some 
asserted  right  has  been  violated.  In  regard  to 
corporate  rights,  the  coHrts  have  fixed  upon  the 
term  of  twenty  years,  during  which  they  must 
be  claimed  or  exercised,  or  be  deemed  waived. — 
This  is  the  longest  term  which  jy  our  laws  is 
allowed  to  individuals  to  assert  their  rights  in 
any  case;  and  an  exclusion  ot  even  a  rightful 
claimant  from  the  posspssion  of  property  or  the 
enjoyment  of  an  easement,  privilege  or  franchise 
during  that  term  without  any  proceeding  on  his 
part  for  redress,  authorizes  and  demands  the  pre- 
sumptions as  a  waiver  and  abandonment  of  the 
claim.  For  the  reasons  already  given,  we 
think  this  safe  and  salutary  rule  equally  applica- 
ble in  private  controversies  to  legislative  bodies 
and  courts  of  justice." 

With  this  extract,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  which 
seems  to  me  so  clear  and  conclusive,  I  shall  close 
all  I  have  to  say  on  the  act  of  1814,  and  the  bill 
amendatory  thereof,  coming  from  the  select  com- 
mittee of  this  body. 

But,  Sir,  there  is  yet  another  bill  before  Sen- 
ators which  remains  to  be  considered — the  com- 
promise bill  as  it  is  called,  and  introduced  by  the 
honorable  Senator  from  the  sixth,  as  a  substitute 
for  that  emanating  from  the  senate  committee. — 
Sir,  when  this  compromise  bill  was  first  brought 
to  the  notice  of  Senators  by  the  gentleman  from 
the  sixth,  and  referred  for  consideration  to  the 
same  committee  having  in  charg<?  the  bill  to 
amend  the  act  of  1814,  I  was  forcibly  struck  with 
the  remarks  of  the  honorable  Senator  from  the 
22d  in  reference  thereto.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  it  was  hailed  almost  as  a  god-send,  and 


I 


47 


~  my  friend  from  the  22d  intimated  at  once  his 
"■   willingless  to  accept  it  in  lieu  of  his  own. — 

■  A  bill  Sir,  of    a  nature   so  extraordinary  as 

•  never  to  have  had,  as  I  conceive,  a  parallel  either 
in  heaven  above,  or  in  the  earth  beneath,  or  in  the 

•'    leaters  beneath  the  earth.    And  when  introduced 
'    by  the  honorable  Senator,  I  honestly  supposed 
was  for  some  ulterior  purpose — some  high  ob- 

•  ject  that  did  not  appear  on  the  face  of  the  bill  it- 
'    self.    An  act  perhaps  in  the  nature  of  a  "  bill  of 

-  ditcovery'"''  to  cause  debate,  and  thereby  develope 
some  important  trutlis,  which  the  honorable  Sen- 

-  ator  thought  to  underlay  this  whole  njatter  ;  per- 
haps the  important  fact  to  whom  this  great  fran- 
chise in  reality  belonged.  It  brought  forcibly  to 
mv  remembrance  the  wisdom  of  Solomon  of  old, 

■  and  the  seemingly  strange  course  of  that  renown- 
'    ed  monarch,  in  the  case  of  the  two  mothers, 

claiming  the  living  child.    Senators  around  this 
t    circle  are  undoubtealy  familiar  with  the  account 
as  contained  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  first  of 
'    Kings.    Nevertheless  as  being  in  point  I  will 
relate  the  circumstance  as  recorded  in  the  volume 
of  inspiration.    Two  mothers  being  alone  each 
■:     with  an  infant  child  in  the  same  house,  it  so  hap- 
pened that  one  of  the  children  died,  '■  because," 

•  according  to  the  record,  one  of  the  mothers  "over- 
laid  it;"  and  thereupon,  the  mother  of  the  dead 

'    child,  whilst  the  other  mother  slept,  carefully  re- 
moved the  living  child  from  her  arms,  and  placed 
)     the  dead  one  in  its  place.    In  the  morning,  how- 
ever,  the  mother  of  the  living  child  discovered 
^     the  cheat,  and  the  consequence  wis,  an  angry 
I  dispute  between  the  two  mothers  as  to  theowner- 
='    ship  of  the  living  child — each  vehemently  claim- 
ing the  infant  franchise  as  her  own.    In  this  state 
^  j  the  matter  came  to  Solomon  for  his  adjudication, 
1     and  the  king  said,  "  The  one  saith,  this  is  my  son 
j|     that  livcth,  and  thy  son  is  the  dead  ;  and  the  other 
■'■  I  taith  nay;  but  thy  son  is  the  dead,  and  my  son  is 
'     the  ?ir!n?."    To  determine  this  difficult  question, 
J     the  monarch  had  recourse  to  a  felicitous  strata- 
r    .gem — a  bill  of  discovery,  ^ni  commanded  that  a 
"  ^iword  be  brought,  and  that  the  living  child 
«  :  should  be  divided  and  a  moiety  given  to  each  of 

•  !  the  mothers.  To  this  proposition  the  mother  of 
«     the  dead  child,  the  incorrigible  thief,  at  once  con- 

aented;  but  the  mother  of  the  living  child,  whose 
i  "  bowels  yearned  upon  her  son,"  with  all  the  horror 
«  of  a  mother,  cried  out,  "  O,  my  lord,  give  her  the 
iiH  living  child  and  in  no  icise  slay  it!  But  the  other 
It  laid,  let  it  be  neither  mine  nor  thine,  but  divide  it. — 
Then  the  king  answered  and  said,  give  her  the  living 
»  cKUd,  and  in  no  tcise  slay  it ;  she  is  the  mother 
Or  thereof." 

it  Sir,  when  the  honorable  Senator  from  the  sixth 
:te     introduced  this  compromiie  bill  of  his,  as  it  is 

called — this  bill  to  divide  the  living  child — ihe 
[kl  consecrated  estates  of  old  Trinity,  it  struck  me 
I  thst  the  Senator  might  have  drawn  an  important 
ie  truth  from  the  uncommon  avidity  wiih  which  his 
'■0  proposition  was  acceded  to  by  the  honorable 
i  Senator  from  the  22d.  He  should  have  seen  at 
'*  once  that  no  real  friend  to  the  church,  to  its  peace 
ed     and  usefulness  would  have  listened  for  a  moment 

to  a  proposition  so  replete  with  utter  ruin.  But, 


Sir,  I  find  that  this  bill  has  been  introduced  by 
the  honorable  Senator  from  the  sixth  with  the 
intent  of  urging  its  passage  through  this  body  if 
possible.  I  call  upon  the  Senator  to  pause.  I 
beg  of  him  to  look  at  the  ruinous  consequences 
which  must  inevitably  follow  its  passage  through 
these  halls  of  Legislature.  In  my  estimation, 
Mr.  Chairman,  it  would  be  infinitely  better  that 
these  estates  of  Trinity  parish,  given  for  high  and 
holy  purposes,  should  be  at  once  annihilated 
were  the  thin»  possible,  rather  than  to  be  placed 
in  a  position  so  pregnant  with  evil  consequences. 

It  is  not  ray  intention,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  ex- 
amine in  detail  this  bill  of  the  honorable  Senator 
from  the  sixth.  The  remarks  that  I  have  al- 
ready made  applying  thereto  with  equal  or  great- 
er force.  It  is,  indeed,  according  to  my  ideas, 
a  strange  document,  and  utterly  unworthy  so 
eminent  a  god-father  as  the  Senator  from  the 
sixth.  But,  Sir,  the  Senator  has  not  as  yet  ad- 
dressed the  committee  in  its  behalf  and  fully  ex- 
plained its  various  provisions,  and,  hence,  I  shall 
make  no  further  comments  thereon,  but  in  con- 
clusion say,  that  in  bringing  it  forward  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  bill  emanating  from  the  Senate  com- 
mittee, I  believe  the  gentleman  has  acted  from 
high  conscientious  motives,  for  I  believe  him  in- 
capable of  acting  from  any  other. 

JftH.  SICKLES'  ^KaUJtlJEJTT 
U  BEUILF  OF  TRUITT. 


IN  SENATE  . .  .Friday  April  3.  1  P.  M. 
Mr.  Dablino  resumed  the  Chair  and  annovne- 
ed  the  Special  order. 
Mr.  Sickles  said  : — 

It  is  a  matter  of  regret  to  me,  Mr.  Chairman, 
to  enter  into  this  debate  at  so  late  a  period  of 
the  discussion ;  for  considering  the  number  who 
have  already  participated  in  it,  and  the  marked 
ability  and  thoroughness  with  which  the  topio 
has  been  treated,  it  is  next  to  impossible  to 
avoid  wearying  the  patience  of  the  Senate  by  a 
repetition  of  much  to  which  they  have  already 
listened ;  and  I  should  excuse  myself  from 
troubling  the  Senate  with  any  observations, 
were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  Trinity  Church  and 
Trinity  Parish  are  within  my  Senatorial  district, 
and  that  in  a  certain  sense,  it  may  be  regarded 
as  peculiarly  my  duty  to  lay  before  the  Senate 
the  views — the  wishes — the  anxieties — the  con- 
victions of  my  constituency  upon  this  grave 
question. 

I  have  another  motive,  Sir,  in  taking  part  ia 
this  debate,  which  I  could  not  disregard.  I  was 
born  and  reared  within  the  bosom  of  this  church, 
and  in  this  parish.  The  graves  of  my  humble 
ancestors  lie  within  its  sacred  enclosures.  Th» 
marriage  vow — the  baptismal  blessing  were  pro- 
nounced upon  those  from  whom  I  sprang,  by 
the  side  of  its  altars.  It  i-i  the  only  church  that 
now  remains  within  my  district,  to  take  care  of 
its  poor  ;  to  relieve  their  wants — to  visit  them 
when  sick — to  clothe  them  when  naked — and  to 
gtiide  them  to  a  happy  immortality  hereafter. 


48 


As  tlie  city  has  advanced  ia  wealth  and  pros- 
perity, that  large,  and  respectable,  and  wealthy 
portion  of  our  citizens  who  formerly  resided  with- 
in Trinity  parish,  have  gone  to  remoter  portions 
of  the  city.  But  few  of  them  remain  where  they 
once  lived.  But,  Sir,  there  does  remain  a  large, 
industrious  and  worthy  population,  peculiarly 
dependent  on  the  ministrations  of  tliis  church  ; 
and  I  could  not  do  my  duty.  Sir,  to  this  interest- 
ing portion  of  the  constituency  I  represent  here, 
if  I  did  not  take  an  earnest  part  in  this  discussion. 

The  Honorable  Senator  from  the  22d  has  ex- 
pressed his  surprise  that  this  subject  should  be 
the  occasion  of  any  feeling.  To  use  his  own 
language,  he  says  he  thinks  it  "ought  not  to  ex- 
cite any  feeling."  Sir,  perhaps  to  many  here 
this  corporation — this  church,  is  a  mere  abstrac- 
tion ;  something  only  seen  "  in  the  mind's  eye." 
They  have  not  lived  within  its  fold.  They  have 
not  seen,  day  by  day,  from  early  youlh  lo  mature 
manhood,  the  varied  blessings  it  has  conferred 
upon  those  immediately  beneath  its  care,  and 
upon  whom  its  bounty  has  been  lavished.  So 
that  I  can  understand  why,  looking  at  it  as  a 
cold  abstraction,  they  deem  that  it  need  not, 
and  why  it  does  not,  in  their  breasts  excite  any 
feeling.  But  far  otherwise  is  it  when  an  act  of 
aggression  like  this  is  attempted  against  a  church 
that  our  constituents  have  from  infancy  been 
taught  to  regard  as  sacred  and  good. 

I  have  yet  other  motives  of  duty,  pressing 
me  into  the  arena  of  this  debate.  Not  only  as  a 
man,  as  a  New  Yorker,  and  as  a  representative, 
do  I  feel  great  solicitude  in  the  question  ;  but  as 
an  American  and  as  a  Democrat,  I  have  an 
earnest,  a  profound  interest  in  the  issue.  Not 
from  mere  vulgar  partisan  considerations  ;  but 
as  a  believer  in  democracy,  as  a  believer  in  free 
government ;  as  a  believer,  and  a  hope- 
ful one,  in  the  success  of  that  sys- 
tem of  free  Institutions,  which  we  are  all  en- 
gaged, or  ought  to  be  engaged,  in  perfecting  and 
maintaining.  Yes,  sir,  if  I  do  feel  so  earnest  a 
solicitude  in  the  result  of  this  issue,  it  is  be- 
cause I  would  maintain  always,  and  everywhere 
by  my  voice,  my  vote  and  my  best  labors,  vested 
con\litutional  rights ;  SMdi  it  Vanti  beany  nation 
on  earth — if  there  be  any  form  of  government 
ever  devised, — if  there  be  any  people  under  the 
sun,  that  more  than  any  other  must  bfl  depend- 
ent on  the  scrupuloiis  preservation  of  private 
rights  and  constitutional  guarantees,  it  is  this 
government  of  ours, — it  is  a  people  who  believe 
in  the  democratic  faith,  the  capacity  of  man 
for  self  government. 

We  have  a  government  which  has  surmount- 
ed all  other  dangers.  We  have  a  constitution 
under  which  we  can  hold  elections,  choo.se  legis- 
latures, elect  and  install  Presidents,  and  in  one 
brief  hour  transfer  the  power  of  a  mighty  Em- 
pire from  one  hand  to  another  without  tumult, 
without  resistance,  without  the  pre.sence  of  a 
single  bayonet.  We  have  educated  a  people  to 
a  point  where  they  cau  intelligently  exercise  the 
exalted  function  of  electors.  But,  Sir,  we  have 
yet  to  undergo  a  higher  test — whether  or  no  we 


can  respect,  preserve  and  maintain  inviolate  the]  It 
vested  rights  of  citizens  and  communities.     If'  Jj 
we  can  do  this,  then,  indeed,  shall  we  have  tri- 
umphed.    Then  our  august  experiment  stands  ■ 
out  to  mankind  a  victory — an  example  to  be  fol- 
lowed by  all  otlier  nations  and  by  all  other  races 
throughout  time.    But  if  we  fail  here,  we  send 
an  arrow  through  the  very  heart  of  free  govern-  . 
ment,  and  the  whole  magnificent  fabric  falls. 

And,  sir,  that  issue  is  here  presented  to  this 
Senate  ;  and  in  a  form  so  palpable — 
so  direct — that  there  is  no  escape  from  it,  or  from 
the  consequences  of  the  decision,  if  it  beadverse 
to  the  declared  law  of  the  land — adverse  to  the 
hopes  of  those  who  believe  that  we  are  capable 
of  respecting  the  rights  of  others.  Hence  I 
have  thought  it  proper,  as  a  Democrat,  as  a 
member  of  that  party  that  has  always  endeav- 
ored to  maintain  vested  constitutional  rights, 
everywhere,  in  the  Individual  Man — in  the 
Sovereign  States — in  Communities,  and  in  the 
Cliurch,  to  declare  explicitly  and  fully  where  I 
stand  upon  this  broad  question.  And  there  I 
trust  I  shall  always  stand  ;  and  that,  occupying 
this  ground,  I  shall  always,  as  now,  find  myself 
sustained  by  the  record  and  the  principles  of  the 
proud  party  to  which  I  belong.  When  that  party 
ceases  to  vindicate  and  uphold  vested  constitu- 
tional rights,  then,  and  not  till  then  will  it  cease 
to  possess  my  affections. 

Sir,  nothing  seems  to  me  so  gross,  so  incon- 
sistent, so  ungrateful  in  a  republican  state,  in  a 
community  based  upon  a  recognition  of  the 
rights  of  the  people,  as  an  act  of  aggression  upon 
a  religious  institution.  Have  Senators  forgotten 
that  iron  age  of  despotism  when  the  Church, 
was  the  only  power  that  could  "curb  the  great 
and  raise  the  low  ?''  When  the  only  refuge  of 
the  vassal  from  the  helmeted  knight  or^  the 
crowned  oppressor  was  the  altar  of  the  Church 
within  whose  sacred  circle  no  enemy  dared  to 
venture,  even  though  he  bore  a  sceptre  I  Forages 
this  was  so,  while  the  people  were  struggling 
for  that  recognition  which  in  the  formation  of 
our  Constitution  they  obtained.  And  now,  in  Mfm 
this  land,  consecrated  to  those  principles  in  their  riH 
struggle  for  which  the  people  always  found  an 
ally  in  the  Church  ;  in  this  land,  we  see  the 
powers  of  the  State  invoked  to  strike  down  the 
chart'-red  rights  of  a  constituent  element  of 
that  church. 

Again,  Senators,  do  you  not  know  that  it  is 
in  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era,  in  the 
organization  of  the  primitive  Christian  Church, 
you  find  the  only  model  from  which  your  rep- 
resentative government — your  government  of  a 
representative  republic — is  taken  t  Read  the  his- 
tory of  the  Church  in  the  first  century  of  the  '| 
Christian  Era,  and  you  will  see  in  its  organiza 
tion  the  model  from  which,  more  than  from 
any  other  human  organization,  was  moulded  by 
the  Fathers  of  the  Revolutionary  aj^e,  our  own 
form  of  government.    Thus  it  is  that  from 
State  sprung,  as  it  were,  from  the  very  loins  ol 
the    Church    itself,   a  blow  fatal  to  its  ad' 
vancement  and  its  peace  is  to  corneal  \  „j( 


1 


49 


It  is  no  new  thing,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  me  to 
?  find  myself  maintaining  the  views  I  now  advance. 
I  had  the  honor  to  hold  a  seat  in  the  Assembly 
'■f*  in  the  two  s-ssions  of  1847,  when  the  same  ques- 
tion  was  before  the  legislature  ;  when  the  same 
effort  was  made  to  despoil  Trinity  Church  ;  and 
I  stood  then,  as  I  stand  now,  battling  to  maintain 
the  ancient  and  indisputable  rights  of  that  vener- 
able corporation.    I  stood  then,  as  I  wish  I  could 
stand  now  ; — in  an  Assembly  that  unanimously 
~  I  rejected,  and  spurned  from  their  threshold  this 
'''^  scheme  of  aggression.    The  whole  question  was 
then  fully  argued,  maturely  considered,  discussed 
•*  day  after  day  before  the  Committees  and  in  hear- 
ing  of  the  House,  and  the  project  of  spoliation 
'   was  dismissed  from  the  ohamber^without  even  a 
' '  solitary  vote  I 

What  influence,  Sir,  has  penetrated  our  poli- 
tics,  our  legislation,  that  in  ten  brief  years  we 
And  this  aggression  menaced  anew  in  such  a  form 
as  to  give  rise  to  most  serious  apprehensions,  all 
•'  over  tlie  commonwealth,  that  the  act — the  fatal 
i   act — may  not  be  stayed  ?  What  is  it  that  reveals 
H   to  us  the  extraordinary  spectacle  of  eminent 
'■^  leaders  of  a  powerful  party,  around  this  circle, 
'<    ready  to  enter  upon  a  crusade,  not  for  the 
'.'    Church,  but  against  it  ?    Sir,  when  I  see  gentle- 
•"    men  representing,  and  eminently  entitled  to  re- 
present,  the  dominant  party  in  this  chamber, 
conspicuous  in  this  outset,  I  am  induced  to  ask 
-■    "  what  are  the  motives  that  influence  their  ac- 
tion.  What  is  there  in  Trinity  Church,  its  histo- 
■'    ry  or  ministrations,  or  the  venerable  religion  of 
'3    which  it  is  so  benificent  a  representative,  that 
"    renders  it  the  object  of  their  powerful  and  or- 
J    ganized  assaults  ?" 

il       The  anti-slavery  or  republican  party,  which  is 
|j|    in  the  ascendant  in  this  chamber  and  in  this 
IS    legislature,  arose  to  power — upon  what  ?  Upon 
t    that  sympathy  latent  in  every  human  heart, 
0    which  looks  with  kindness  and  favor  on  what- 
-i    ever  is  abstractly  right.    An  efl'ort  to  mitigate  the 
5    social  and  domestic  condition  of  a  portion  of 
.'    the  human  race,  whom  they  tliought  in  an  ab- 
:    Btract  point  of  view,  entitled  to  certain  rights 
.'    withheld  from  them,  led  to  the  organization  of 
:    that  party.    After  a  struggle  which  lasted  a  gen- 
'    eration,  circumstances  enabled  it  to  appeal  suc- 
(    cessfully  to  those  sympathies  and  feelings  which 
!    sway  the  masses  of  the  State,  and  it  ascended  to 
power.    No  sooner  in  power, — a  power  based 
upon  this  element  of  love  and  reverence  for 
what  is  abstractly  just  and  true,  than  they  are 
found,  through  their  leaders  on  this  floor,  en- 
tering upon  a  crusade  against  the  vested  consti- 
tutional rights  of  an  ancient,  a  venerable  reli- 
gious corporation.    Sir,  this  party,  struggling 
long  and  patiently  against  prejudice,  and  oppo- 
sition, and  contumely,  forgetful  of  its  own  re  • 
cord,  and  of  that  law  of  human  nature  through 
which  it  emerged  from  the  insigniflcanoe  of  an 
obscure  f  ction,  signalizes  itselt  in  the  first  year 
of  its  success,  by  imitating  the  very  sin — the 
oppressive  exercise  of  .arbitrary  power — against 
Which  it  has  so  long  disclaimed,  and  against 
which  it  has  struggled  with  so  much  determina- 
tion.   Like  that  ruler  of  the  Ottoman  race,  who 


was  brought  from  a  dungeon  in  which  he  had 
been  incarcerated  from  childhood,  to  be  crowned; 
but  whose  reign  of  only  a  month,  was  marked 
by  so  many  and  such  inveterate  cruelties,  that 
h?  was  assassinatt-d  in  the  Seraglio. 

Mr.  Cuyler:  I  thought  it  was  a  Democrat 
who  introdued  this  bill. 

Mr.  Sickles:  No  sir,  it  was  not  introduced 
by  a  Democrat.  It  was  introduced  by  iny  col- 
league (Mr.  Spencer),  who  was  elected  by  the 
Democracy, but  who  now  agrees  with  the  Senator 
(Mr.  Cuyler),  and  his  political  associates  on  the 
fundamental  issues  which  divide  the  Democracy 
from  the  Republican  party;  he,  having  first  aban- 
doned his  party,  has  led  this  onslaught  against 
his  own  church. 

Mr.  Spencer:  I  don't  think  the  Senator  can 
justly  say  that.  In  1855,  when  I  held  a  seat  in 
this  body,  a  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted, 
calling  upon  Trinity  church  for  a  report.  I 
knew  nothing  of  that  resolution  prior  to  its  adop- 
tion, nor  did  I  know  from  whence  it  came.  The 
report  was  maJe.  Its  statements  were  disputed, 
and  it  was  referred  to  a  committee  to  investigate. 
That  was  the  first  I  knew  of  the  matter. 

Mr.  SlfKLES:  There  is  no  difference  in  law  or 
in  morals  between  the  principal  and  the  accessory 
before  or  after  the  act.  It  is  no  matter  who 
conceived  this  scheme;  there  is  no  difference  be- 
tween bim  and  the  one  who  endeavors  to  carry  it 
to  a  successful  termination.  Or,  if  there  is  any 
difference,  it  is  only  the  difference  between  the 
prosecutor  and  the  headsman. 

But,  sir,  I  turn  now  to  my  honorable  friend 
from  the  6th,  (Mr.  Brooks),  the  leader  of  the 
American  party;  an  eminently  conservative  pub- 
lic man,  possessing  in  a  prominent  degree  the  af- 
fections and  regard  of  his  constituency  because  of 
his  known  conservative  tendencies  and  convic- 
tions, andl  find  him  departing  from  the  long 
and  honorable  record  which  sent  him  there — and 
upon  that  record  rests  his  truest  fame — ^joining 
tiiis  assault  upon  a  venerable  and  good  church. — 
I  find  him,  sir,  bringing  in  a  second  proposition 
to  partition  the  estates  of  this  church,  confided  to 
its  pious  uses,  and  so  possessed  and  administered 
by  it  for  nearly  two  centuries. 

I  am  the  more  amazed  at  this  spectacle,  sir, 
than  at  the  other  which  I  have  just  attempted 
to  depict,  because  my  honorable  friend  is  the 
leader  of  the  American  Party, — par  excellence — 
a  lover  of  the  Union ;  of  every  element  which 
form>!  it ;  of  every  ligament  that  binds  it;  of  every 
tie  that  tends  to  make  it  perpetual  and  glorious. 
Yes,  I  find  him — the  representative  and  leader 
of  this  great  conservative  constituency  and  party 
— ready  to  aim  a  blow  at  one  of  the  strongest 
sinews  that  bind  the  American  Union.  The 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  an  institution, 
embracing  the  whole  land  ;  knowing  no  North, 
no  South  ,  no  East,  no  West.  It  is  a  religious  in- 
stitution that  has  not  subordinated  its  organiza- 
tion, its  dicipline,  or  its  administration  to  the 
political  accidents  or  contingencies  of  the  day  ; 
but  rather  believing  that  it  is  to  exist  for  all 
time,  confines  itself  to  the  legitimate  sphere  of 


50 


its  holy  mission,  and  never  has  polluted  its  pul- 
pit with  the  stain  of  politics.  Sir,  I  should 
think  that  the  honorable  Senator,  (Mr.  Brooks) 
above  all  others, — conservative,  national,  patri- 
otic as  I  know  him  to  be, — would  be  the  last  to 
lift  his  hand  against  .such  an  ally. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  this  coun- 
try, is  as  a  religious  organization,  in  its  House 
of  Bishops  and  in  its  organic  law,  a  type  of  the 
Union.  It  has  always  been  the  guardian  of  or- 
der— the  defender  of  the  constitution  and  the 
Union.  Sir,  this  consideration  is  conspicuous 
among  those  which  impel  me  to  feel  a  warm  so- 
licitude for  the  result  of  this  contest,  and  prompt 
me  to  enter  into  it  with  zeal  and  ardor. 

Mr.  Chairman,  let  ug  see  how  this  question 
ha?  come  to  the  Senate.  My  colleague  from  the 
5th  (Mr.  Spencer)  has  adverted  to  it;  and  I  will 
allow  myself  to  be  diverted,  in  view  of  his 
statement,  from  the  order  in  which  I  had  pro- 
posed to  present  the  origin  and  present  .state  of 
the  question.  We  have  two  bills  on  our  table  , 
one  reported  by  my  colleague  from  the  5th  (Mr. 
Spencer)  from  the  Select  Committee  by  whom 
the  subject  was  brought  before  us,  and  anothtr 
introduced  by  another  colleague,  the  Senator 
from  the  6th  (Mr.  Brooks).  I  propose  in  my  ar- 
gument to  confine  myself,  in  the  first  instance, 
at  all  events,  to  the  proposition  of  the  Senator 
from  the  6th  (Mr.  Brooks).  But  on  referring  to 
the  history  and  present  condition  of  the  ques- 
tion, I  shall  embrace  in  my  remarks  both  propo- 
sitions before  the  Senate. 

Sir,  this  Committee,  clothed  with  certain  very 
limited  powers  of  investigation,  and  from 
which  has  emanated  the  bill  which  forms  the 
basis  of  this  movement,  was  raised  the  very 
last  night  of  the  Session  of  1856.  In  the  last 
excited,  heated,  angry,  tumultuous  hours  of  that 
session,  the  proposition  was  introduced  into  this 
Chamber,  and  was  carried  through  without  dis- 
cussion— without  debate — without  considera- 
tion, which  initiated  this  onslaught  upon  the 
Church.  And,  Sir,  if  it  had  been  discussed  ; 
if  time  for  reflection  and  deliberation  had  been 
allowed,  no  such  resolution  would  have  passed 
that  body.  As  it  was,  I  should  have  availed 
myself  of  the  opportunity  to  discuss  it  ;  I  should 
have  done  more  than  record  my  silent  vote 
against  it,  had  I  not  been  assured  by  the  honor- 
able Senator  on  my  right,  (Mr.  Spencer)  that  it 
was  a  resolution  to  which  there  was  no  objection 
on  the  part  of  the  Church  or  Irom  any  quarter  ; 
that  it  was  not  soch  a  resolution  as  I  had  before 
opposed,  and  which  as  the  Journal  shows,  had 
been  rejected  on  the  19th  of  March,  1856,  by 
an  emphatic  vote.  Under  that  assurance  I  al- 
lowed it  to  pass  ;  not  by  my  vote,  for  under  any 
circumstances,  whether  the  church  had  acqui- 
esced in  it  or  not,  I  should  not  have  given  it  my 
vote,  and  I  did  not,  because  it  was  an  enquiry 
beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Senate. 

Now,  Sir,  on  page  386  of  the  Senate  journal 
of  '56,  under  date  the  19lh  of  March  1856,  we 
can  find  what  was  the  deliberate  judgment  of  the 
Senate  at  its  last  session  upon  this  question  when 


fairly  presented  and  considered.  I  will  read 
from  the  journal : — 

Mr.  Richardson  offered,  for  the  consideration 
of  the  Senate  a  resolution  in  the  words  following, 
to  wit: — 

Resolved,  That  the  select  committee,  composed 
of  Senators  Spencer,  Noxon  and  Ramsey,  to 
whom  is  referred  the  report  of  the  Vestry  of 
Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  in  re- 
ply to  resolutions  of  the  Senate  passed  April  13, 
1855,  are  hereby  authorized  and  required  to  as- 
certain the  facts,  information,  matters  and  things 
contained  iu  said  resolution,  and  the  reasons  for 
the  insufficiencies  and  evasiveness  of  such  re- 
port ;  also  the  value,  condition,  tenure  and  title 
of  the  property  and  real  estate  mentioned  in  said 
report,  and  such  other  real  estate  as  said  Trin- 
ity Church  may  claim  to  own  or  be  in  possession 
of,  and  report  the  result  of  their  investigation  to 
the  Senate  at  the  next  session  of  the  Legislature  ; 
and  that  the  said  committee,  for  such  purpose, 
are  hereby  authorized  to  hold  meetings  and  con- 
duct the  necessary  examinations  after  the  ad- 
journment of  this  Legislature,  and  have  power 
to  send  for  and  examine  persons  and  papers, 
and  to  administer  all  necessary  oaths  or  affirma- 
tions, necessary  in  the  proper  discharge  of  their 
duties. 

Pending  discussion  on  the  above  resolution, 
the  hour  of  12  o'clock  having  arrived,  the  Sen- 
ate went  into  Executive  Session,  and  after  some 
time  spent  therein,  the  doors  were  opened  and 
legislative  business  resumed. 

The  President  put  the  question  whether  the 
Senate  would  agree  to  the  said  resolution  of  Mr. 
Richardson,  and  it  was  decided  in  tha  negative, 
as  follows : 

For  tlie  affirmative— Messrs.  Bellinger,  Ferdon,  Leo 
Riohardeon — 4. 

For  the  negative— Brudford,  Brlggo,  Brooks,  Clark, 
Riilc,  Ilalnteaii,  Haroourt,  HotohkisB,  "untlngton,Kellv, 
Madden,  Nichols,  Fiitterson,  Rider,  ./V.  M.  Smi'h.  CP. 
Smith,  J.  A.  Smith,  Sickles,  Upham,  Wadeworth,  White 
—21. 

This  resolution.  Sir,  which  is  in  substance, 
similar  to  the  one  hurried  through  in  the  last 
hour  of  the  session,  though  not  so  disingenuous 
and  difguised  in  form,  was  debated,  considered 
and  deliberately  acted  upon  ;  and  with  what  re- 
sult, the  record  I  have  read  will  show.  There 
were  four  afiivmative  and  twenty-one  negative 
votes.  This  was  the  real  judgment  of  the  Sen- 
ate ;  repudiating,  rejecting,  scouting  the  whole 
scheme  at  its  very  initiation.  But,  Sir,  those 
who  are  artful  iu  legislation  understand  veiy 
well  how  easy  it  is  to  get  a  measure  through  iu 
the  last  hurried  hours  of  the  session,  which  at 
any  other  time  would  be  certain  of  rejection. 
It  is  then,  in  the  excitement  and  confusion 
which  prevail,  you  hurry  through,  without  d  - 
tection  those  monstrous  schemes  which  yea 
have  even  already  rejected  in  your  calmer  juil'<- 
ment.  It  has  become  proverbial  that  the  mid- 
night hour,  at  tlie  close  of  the  session,  i.s  lli  i 
moment  when  all  those  corrupt  schemes  whirli 
cannot  bear  exposure  to  the  lig^>t,  are  smuguli  d 
through  the  forms  of  legislation.    Then  il 


51 


amidst  a  confusion  of  subjects  and  an  exhaus- 
tion of  frame,  which  renders  it  impossible  for 
the  human  intellect  to  grasp  half  the  topics  that 
are  hurried  before  it,  that  schemes,  of  spoliation 
and  mischief  whether  in  Federal  or  State  Leg- 
islatures, are  matured  and  executed.  And  such 
Sir,  was  the  hour,  and  such  the  manner,  in 
which  this  monster  was  born. 

But  although  this  was  no  new  scheme  in  its 
object,  yet  in  the  manner  and  mode  of  its  execu- 
tion— I  say  it  for  the  honor  of  the  State,  and  for 
the  credit  of  those  who  have  heretofore  taken 
part  in  the  movement  carried  on  against  Trinity 
Church, — it  was  unprecedented.  In  1847  a  like 
attempt  was  made  to  give  the  control  of  Trinity 
Church  to  those  not  of  her  parish,  nor  belong- 
ing to  her  congregation.  The  attempt  was  made 
in  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature  ;  but  it  was 
a  respectable  attempt ;  eminently  so  in  the  mode 
and  manner  in  which  it  was  brought  before  the 
Legislature  ;  open,  manly,  straightforward ;  in- 
troduced here  on  the  authority  of  reputable 
names  :  advocated  by  lawyers  of  ability  ;  and 
pressed  on  the  judgment  of  tlie  legislature  on 
respectable  grounds,  and  by  reputable  means. 

Mr.  CnYLEB  :  Will  the  Senator  give  way  ?  I 
see  it  is  the  hour  of  our  usual  adjournment. 

Mr.  Sickles  :  Certainly.  I  will  give  way  to  a 
motion  for  a  recess. 

The  committee  of  the  whole  then  rose  and  re- 
ported progress  on  the  bill,  which  was  made  the 
special  order  for  7  o'clock  in  the  evening,  and 
the  Senate  adjourned. 

m  SEN \TF.  April  3,  7  P.  SI. 

Mr.  Sickles  resumed  his  argument.    He  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  When  I  gave  way  for  a  recess 
this  morning,  I  was  about  calling;  the  attention 
of  the  committee  to  the  aspect  which  this  'ques- 
tion presented  when  brought  before  the  Assembly 
in  the  Legislature  of  1847.  Before  I  proceed, 
Jiowever,  with  what  I  have  to  say  on  that  point, 
St  will  supply  an  omission  which  I  deem  of  some 
importance  as  to  the  position  of  the  question 
jl'here  at  this  time.  I  read  to  the  Senate  this 
'  morning  the  resolution  of  inquiry  of  the  19th  of 
March,  introduod  by  the  Hon.  Senator  from  the 
19th  (Mr.  Richardson);  a  resolution  which,  the 
Senate  will  remember,  stated  with  much  dis- 
tinctness the  several  points  to  be  embraced  in 
the  inquiry  sought  to  be  instituted  ;  a  resolution 
which  called  up  all  the  merits  of  the  question, 
and  which  was  emphatically  voted  down. 

I  omitted  to  read,  however,  the  resolution 
■which  passed  the  Senate  on  the  last  day  of  the 
session,  and  to  direct  attention  to  the  difference 
between  the  two.  The  second  resolution  was 
offered  by  the  Honorable  Senator  from  the  22d, 
and  is  in  these  words: 

"  Mr.  NoxoN  offered  for  the  consideration  of 
the  Senate  the  following  resolution,  to  wit: 

^'■Resolvnd,  That  the  select  committee  to  which 
was  referred  the  report  of  Trinity  church, 
be  authorized  to  examine  into  the  matters  con- 
nected therewith;  during  the  recess,  and  to  report 
to  the  next  Legislature." 

A  resolution,  Sir,  not  calling  the  attention  of 


the  Senate  to  any  feature  proposed  to  be  embrac- 
ed in  the  inquiry  which  it  authorized;  a  resolu- 
tion not  justifying,  in  any  sense,  the  inquisition 
that  was  afterwards  in  fact  established,  or  the 
unprecedent-ed  range  of  inquiry  which  it  was 
made  to  embrace.  An  inquisition,  I  say,  be- 
cause substantially  it  was  so;  for  the  inquiry  was 
stringent,  severe,  secret  and  unlawful.  That  it 
was  strmgent  to  the  utmost  limit  of  severity,  any 
one  who  reads  the  evidence  can  see  for  him- 
self. That  it  was  secret,  is  proved  by  the  fact 
that  a  copy  of  the  testimony  was  refused  to  the 
corporation,  and  to  the  highly  respectable  per- 
sons attempted  to  be  impeached  in  the  inquiry, 
although  they  offered  to  pay  the  expense  incur- 
red in  making  such  copy;  unlawful,  because  the 
A\hoIe  subject  matter  was  without  the  constitu- 
tional jurisdiction  of  the  Senate. 

Now,  Sir,  I  want  to  emphasize  for  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Senate,  first,  the  contrast  between 
the  full  and  explicit  resolution  rejected  after  dis- 
cussion by  an  overwhlming  vote  on  the  19th  of 
March,  and  the  resoluion  passed  without  exami- 
nation on  the  last  night  and  in  the  last  hours  of 
the  Senate;  and  secondly,  the  contrast  between 
the  sphere  and  scope  of  the  enquiry  apparently 
contemplated  by  the  last  resolution,  and  the  infi- 
nitely wider  range  taken,  assumed,  usurped  by 
the  committee  formed  under  that  resolution, 
when  they  got  to  iVew  York,  after  the  final  ad- 
tournment,  and  were  beyond  the  control  of  the 
Senate. 

This  leads  me  to  contrast  once  more  the  state 
of  the  question  as  brought  before  us  now,  and 
the  manner  in  which  it  was  presented  to  the 
Legislature  of  1847.  That,  Sir.  was  a  manly, 
open,  straight-forward  presentation  of  the  issue. 
The  parties  to  that  enquiry  then  brought  before 
the  Legislature  the  legal  question — pure  and  sim- 
ple— involved  in  the  matter;  whether  or  no,  by 
the  charter  of  the  corporation,  those  persons  who 
now  claim  the  right  to  participate  in  its  govern- 
ment, have  any  legal  title  to  do  so.  That  was 
the  naked  question  presented  to  the  Legislature 
of  1847,  and  decided,  as  we  saw  this  morning, 
by  an  overwhelming  expression  of  the  Legisla- 
ture against  the  applicants. 

And  here  I  may  say  that  the  Legislature  of 
1847  was  chosen  by  the  people  of  the  state,  to 
mature  the  laws  necessary  to  put  into  operation 
the  new  constitution  of  1846;  a  Legislature  of 
distinguised  ability,  and  numbering  among  its 
members  some  of  the  soundest  lawyers  and  ablest 
men  in  the  state.  In  the  Assembly,  the  judici- 
ary committee  were  unanimous  in  their  decision 
against  the  application,  and  their  report  was  sus- 
tained in  the  House  without  a  dissenting  vote. — 
In  this  branch  of  the  Legislature,  the  majority  of 
the  committee  were  adverse  to  the  applicants, 
and  were  sustained  by  the  Senate. 

Now,  Sir,  let  us  go  back  again  for  a  period  of 
thirty  or  more  years,  when  the  question  was  be- 
fore the  Legislature  of  the  State,  in  the  applica- 
tion made  on  behalf  of  Trinity  corporation,  for 
the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814.  The  matter  was 
then  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Legislature 


52 


by  the  corporation  itself,  in  a  memorial  under  its 
own  seal,  one  or  two  extracts  from  which  I  pro- 
pose to  read.  And  I  go  into  this  elaborate  state- 
ment of  the  question  as  then  presented  and  as 
presented  now  to  us,  in  order  to  show  that  these 
gentlemen  ot  the  committee,  in  the  bill  which 
they  have  presented  here,  have  brought  no  new 
matter  to  the  attention  of  the  Senate;  have  raised 
no  new  question;  have  discovered  no  new  griev- 
once;  but  have  merely  dug  out  of  oblivion  an 
aid  thread-bare,  worn  out  controversy,  which  has 
been  settled  over  and  over  again  in  the  most  for- 
mal, deliberate,  satisfactory  manner,  and  acqui- 
esced in  by  ninety-nine  out  of  every  hundred  of 
those  who  had  ever  taken  a  different  view  of  the 
subject. 

Sir,  you  would  suppose  from  the  manner  in 
•which  Trinity  Church  has  been  put  upon  trial 
here  at  this  time,  and  from  the  bitterness  with 
which  she  has  been  assailed  in  this  discussion, 
that  she  had  shrunk  from  this  issue;  and  as  if 
conscious  of  being  in  the  wrong,  had  evaded 
enquiry  as  to  the  tenure  by  which  she  holds  her 
possessions.  Why,  Sir,  the  first  two  occasions 
on  which  the  attention  of  the  legislaure  was 
called  to  the  point  now  in  dispute,  were  occa- 
sions when  the  subject  was  brought  up  upon 
the  memorial  of  the  church  itself  under  its 
corporate  seal.  Let  me  refer  Senators  to  the  pe- 
tition bearing  date  the  25th  January,  1S14. — 
This  petition,  presented  to  the  Legislature  by 
Trinity  church,  called  attention  directly  to  the 
subject  now  before  us  ;  predicated  upon  which 
and  upon  the  enquiry  and  investigation  connect- 
ed therewith,  the  law  of  1S14  was  passed,  which. 
It  is  now  proposed  to  repeal,  and  which  it  is  al- 
leged the  corporation  obtained  through  some  ex- 
traordinary influence;  by  deception,  by  mis- 
statements of  the  truth.  We  shall  see  how  en- 
tirely without  foundation  are  these  accusations. 

After  a  brief  introduction  of  the  subject  matter 
the  petition  goes  on  to  say  that  after  the  revolu- 
iion,  "an  act  of  the  Legislature  passed  for  mak- 
ng  such  alterations  in  the  charter  of  the  rorpor-, 
ation  of  Trinity  Church  as  to  render  it  more 
conformable  to  the  constitution  of  the  Slate;  by 
one  clause  whereof  all  the  rights,  privileges, 
benefits  and  emoluments  which  in  and  by  the 
said  charter  were  designed  to  be  secured  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York  in  commun- 
ion of  the  church  of  England,  were  conferred 
upon  all  persons  professing  themselves  members 
of  the  Episcopal  church,  who  should  hold,  occu- 
py, or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in  the  said  church, 
and  should  regularly  pay  to  the  support  of  the 
said  church,  and  such  others  as  should  in  the  said 
church  partake  of  the  holy  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  at  least  once  in  every  year,  being 
inhabitants  of  the  said  city. 

"That  since  the  passing  of  the  act  above  referred 
to,  the  pew  holders  of  Trinity  church  and  of  the 
shurches  or  chapels  belonging  to  the  said  corpo- 
ration, and  the  regular  commnicants  therein, 
have  been  the  only  persons  admitted  to  vote  at 
elections  for  church  wardens  and  vestrymen  of 
the  said  corporation  according  to  the  just  and  fair 


construction  contemporaneously  and  ever  since 

given  to  the  said  act. 

"  Your  Petitioners  beg  leave  further  to  show, 
that  in  consequence  of  the  rapid  and  unexampled 
increase  and  prosperity  of  our  country  since  the 
said  revolution,  and  the  corresponding  growth 
and  population  ot  the  city  of  New  York,  Trini- 
ty church,  aforesaid,  with  the  churches  and 
chapels  belonging  to  its  corporation,  became  in- 
sufficient for  the  accommodation  of  all  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  said  city  who  professed  themselves 
members  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  or 
wished  to  become  so,  on  which  account,  and  for 
a  variety  of  other  reasons  not  necessary  to  be 
suggested,  numerous  persons  of  this  description 
have  been  induced  from  time  to  time,  to  forna 
themselves  into  distinct  corporations,  each  hav- 
ing its  own  peculiar  endowments  and  places  of 
worship,  with  rectors  and  other  officers  of  their 
own  choice,  totally  independent  of  any  control  or 
interference  of  your  Petitioners," 

Now,  Sir,  this  I  sets  forth  precisely  the  state 
of  facts  existing  in  1  S14,  and  shown  to  exist  now, 
to  wit  :  in  consequence  of  the  growth  of  the  city 
and  the  increase  of  the  population,  persons  form- 
erly members  of  Trinity  church,  and  entitled  to 
participate  in  the  control  of  its  affairs,  had  gone 
out  of  the  parish;  had  formed  themseves  into 
new  congregations;  had  erected  new  churches, 
which  had  themselves  become  incorporated,  and 
were  now  entirely  distinct  from  and  independent 
of  Trinity.  And  then  the  petition  goes  on  to 
show, 

"  That  a  number  of  such  religious  corpoi-ations 
have  accordingly  been  organized  as  the  law  di- 
rects, some  with  and  some  without  the  concur- 
rance  of  your  petitioners;  to  all  which  your  pe- 
tition ?rs  have  made  liberal  donations,  and  with 
whose  internal  concerns  your  petitioners  or  any 
of  the  members  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity 
Church,  as  such,  do  not  claim  any  right  to  in- 
termeddle; nor  do  the  said  cor /torations  possessor 
claim  any  right  for  themselves  or  their  members 
to  vote  in  the  elections,  or  regulate  the  affSirs  of 
Trinity  Church. 

"  Nevertheless,  a  few  individuals  belonging  to 
such  separate  corporations,  have  recently  pre- 
tended to  claim  tha'  right,  and  at  the  last  annual 
election  of  church  wardens  and  vestrymen  of 
Trinity  church,  held  in  the  month  of  March,  in 
the  year  1812,  two  or  three  persons  being  mem- 
bers of  incorporated  churches,  separate  and  dis- 
tinct from  your  petitioners,  tendered  themselves 
as  voters;  but  their  votes  under  an  ordinance 
previously  passed  by  your  petitioners,  were  re- 
jected, and  no  measures  have  been  yet  taken  to 
enforce  or  establish  the  right  so  claimed. 

"  It  must  be  ohvious,  however,  that  attempts  of 
this  nature  can  not  fail  to  produce  strife  and 
litigation,  and  to  foster  and  keep  alive  preten- 
sions of  the  most  unreasonable  nature  and  of  the 
most  mischievous  tendency. 

"  Your  petitioners  are,  moreover,  sensible  that 
since  the  formation  of  such  distinct  corporations, 
the  corporate  name  by  which  your  petitioners 
are  designated  has  become  inapplicable,  and 


53 


ought  to  be  changed  ;  as  they  do  not  comprehend 
in  their  body  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New  York,  who  now  profess  'o  be  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  church;  and  your  petitioners 
are  further  convinced  that  it  has  become  essential 
to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  said  church,  that 
ALL  DOUBTS  respecting  the  persons  enlilled  to 
vote  for  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trini- 
ty church,  which  may  exist  or  arise  in  consequence 
of  the  said  tepnrate  incorporations,  SHOULD  BE 
FINALLY  OBVIATED  AND  SETTLED!" 

Mark  "  ell  the  fact,  that  a  number  of  these 
new  churches,  these  new  congregations,  had  been 
established;  had  become  incorporated ;  that  the 
great  body  of  these  new  corporators,  and  the 
corporations  themselves,disclaimed  any  intention 
to  interfere  in  any  manner  with  the  government 
of  Trinity;  but  that  '"u  /eic  jjcrsons"  belonging 
to  such  separate  corporations,  and  being  mem- 
bers of  churches  distinct  from  Trinity,  asserted 
this  novel  and  extraordinary  right  to  vote  at  her 
elections.  And  this,  let  me  remark  here,  is  the 
first  record  any  where,  of  the  assertion  in  a  for- 
mal manner,  of  this  right  by  persons  not  mem- 
bers of  Trinity  corporation. 

Now,  what  does  Trinity  church  say  when  this 
pretence  is  for  the  first  time  set  up?  Does  she 
evade  the  issue?  Does  she  flee  from  the  contest? 
No;  she  waits  a  reasonable  time  to  enable  these 
persons,  or  some  one  of  them,  to  enforce  their 
pretended  claim  in  the  courts  of  the  State,  which 
they  had  a  perfect  right  to  do,  and  w"hich  would 
have  been  the  proper  and  legitimate  course  to 
pursue;  and  finding  that  they  did  not  choose — for 
good  and  sufficient  reasons,  no  doubt — to  take 
the  case  into  the  courts  of  justice;  and  anxious 
that  no  disturbing  element  should  be  allowed  to 
distract  the  harmony  of  the  parish,  or  disturb 
the  repose  of  the  church  at  '.arge,  she  c^mes 
here  represented  by  her  officers,  and  over  the 
seal  of  her  incorporation,  frankly  and  fully  puts 
all  the  facts  before  the  representatives  of  the 
people;  and  asks  the  legislature  of  1814  to  pass 
Buch  a  law  in  the  premises  as  in  their  wisdom 
may  seem  just  and  proper. 

Well,  Sir,  on  this  petition,  after  full  consider- 
ation of  the  subject,  the  law  of  1814  was  passed; 
and  although,  Senators,  in  reading  these  extracts 
from  the  petitions  and  the  laws,  I  am  wearying 
your  patience  with  matters  to  which  you  have 
already  listened,  yet  they  are  so  important,  so 
vital  to  a  full  understanding  of  the  merits  of  the 
case,  that  even  at  the  risk  of  wearying  your  in- 
dulgence I  shall  continue  to  read  somewhat 
fully  from  the  statutes,  Charters  and  grants 
bearmg  upon  the  line  of  argument  I  intend  to 
pursue.  Let  me  now  draw  the  attention  of  the 
Senate  to  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  1814, 
which  it  is  proposed  to  repeal: 

"  II.  ^nd  be  it  further  enacted,  That  all  male 
persons  of  full  age,  who,  for  the  space  of  one 
year  preceding  any  election,  shall  have  been 
piembers  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  church 
aforesaid,  or  of  any  of  the  chapels  belonging  to 
the  same,  and  forming  part  of  the  same  religious 
corporation,  and  who  shall  hold,  occupy^  or  enjoy 


a  pew  or  seat  in  Trinity  church,  or  in  any  of  th  e 
said  chapels,  or  have  partaken  of  the  holy  com- 
munion therein  within  the  said  year,  AND  NO 
OTHER  PERSONS,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at 
the  annual  elections  for  the  church-wardens  and 
vestrymen  of  the  said  corporation." 

I  will  now  read  an  extract  from  the  fourth 
section  of  the  same  act,  in  reference  to  Sf 
George's  church,  which  is  declared  a  separate 
church  from  Trinity.  It  is  one  of  the  new 
churches  described  in  the  petition: 

"  Be  it  further  enacted.  That  the  separation  of 
St.  George's  chapel,  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
from  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church,  shall  be, 
and  hereby  is  confirmed :  and  that  the  said 
church  now  called  St.  George's  church,  shall  not 
at  any  time  hereafter  be  held  or  taken  to  be  a 
church  or  chapel  belonging  to  Trinity  church,  so 
as  to  qualify  any  of  the  congregation  thereof  to 
vote  at  the  elections  of  church-wardens  and  ves- 
trymen of  Trinity  church,  above  mentioned." 

And  now  a  further  fact  from  the  fifth  sec- 
tion : 

"  ^nd  be  it  further  enacted.  That  when,  and  as 
often  as  it  shall  seem  expedient  to  the  siid  rector, 
church-wardens,  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  church, 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  to  divide  the  congrega- 
tion or  corporators  belonging  to  the  said  corpora- 
tion, it  shall  be  lawful  for  them  so  to  do,  by  setting 
apart,  as  a  separate  church,  any  of  the  churches 
or  chapels  that  may  belong  to  and  form  part  of 
the  said  corporation,  provided  the  same  be  done 
with  the  assent  of  a  majority  of  the  persons  en- 
titled to  vote  as  aforsaid,  who  shall  belong  to 
such  church  or  chapel  intended  to  be  set  apart, 
and  who  shall  attend  a  meeting  to  consider  of 
such  separation  after  at  least  ten  days'  notice 
previously  given  for  that  purpose  in  the  said 
church  or  chapel,  during  or  immediately  after 
divine  service;  and  such  separation  so  assented 
to,  shall  take  effect  according  to  the  terms  agreed 
upon  between  tie  parties;  and  the  members  of 
the  congregation  of  such  church  or  chapel  so 
separated,  stiall  imii  ediately  thereafter  cease  to 
be  members  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church 
above  mentioned,  and  may  proceed  to  incorpo- 
rate themselves  according  to  law  as  a  separate 
congregation  of  the  said  Protestant  Episcopal 
church." 

Thus,  Senators  will  perceive  that  in  the  ac- 
of  1814,  the  whole  controversy  was  met  and 
tet tied;  first,  the  question  was  disposed  of,  as 
to  who  should  and  who  should  not  be  entitled  to 
vote  at  the  elections  for  Wardens  and  Vestrymen; 
secondly,  ample  and  explicit  provision  was  made 
for  the  contingency  then  foreshadowed  and  now 
realized — the  increase  in  the  number  of  churches, 
owing  to  the  then  orobable  and  now  real  growth 
of  the  city.  By  the  law  passed  in  1801,  ant 
confirmed  in  1819,  all  persons  in  communion 
with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  not  mem- 
bers of  any  other  congregation  were  authorized 
to  form  themselves  into  new  congregations  and 
become  incorporated.  The  law  of  1814  wasjmade 
even  more  emphatic  and  distinct  upon  this  point 
than  the  law  of  1801.    This  law  of  1814,  passed 


54 


on  the  memorial  of  the  corporation,  was  in  all 
its  provisions  accepted  by  the  corporation  and 
become  a  contract  between  it  and  the  State. 

There  was  one  other  period,  antecedent  to  the 
act  of  1814,  when  the  same  question  arose;  I  re- 
fer to  the  act  of  1784,  and  the  proceedings  which 
led  to  it;  it  was  then  dimly  foreseen  that  a 
question  could  possibly  arise  between  those 
members  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church, 
who  remained  within  its  congregation,  and  those 
outside  the  congregation  who  might  under  the 
original  charter,  as  some  construed  it,  claim  the 
right  to  participate  in  the  government  of  the 
church.  Let  me  read  to  tha  Senate,  that  por- 
tion of  the  act  of  17S4.  descriptive  of  the  persons 
who  shall  be  entitled  to  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  the  corporators  to  vote  for  its  Rector,  Church 
Warden  and  Vestrymen.  "An  Act  for  making 
such  alterations  in  the  Charter  of  the  In- 
corporation OF  TRiNitY  Church,  as  to  ren- 
der it  more  conformable  to  the  constitution  of 
this  State." 

^'■Atid  whereas  doubts  have  arisen  on  those  parts 
of  the  said  charter  and  law  first  above  mentioned, 
which  speak  of  inhabitants  in  communion  of  the 
said  church  of  England;  for  removal  whereof; 

"III.  Be  it  further  enacted  by  the  authority 
aforesaid,  that  all  persons  professing  themselves 
members  of  the  Episcopal  church,  who  shall 
either  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in 
the  said  church,  and  shall  regularly  pay  to  the 
support  of  the  said  church,  and  such  others  as 
shall  in  the  said  church  partake  of  the  holy 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  at  least  once  in 
every  year,  being  inhabitants  of  the  city  and 
county  of  New- York,  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the 
rights,  privileges,  benefit  and  emolument,  which 
in  and  by  the  said  charter  and  law  first  above 
mentioned,  are  designed  to  be  secured  to  the  in- 
habitants of  the  city  of  New  York  in  communion 
of  the  church  of  England." 

I  said,  in  reading  the  petition  that  led  to  the 
act  of  1814,  that  the  statement  therein  that  a  few 
persons  had  asserted  in  a  formal  manner  the 
right  to  participate  in  the  control  of  Trinity 
church,  was  the  first  instance  on  record  of  such  a 
pretence  being  set  up.  It  ought  to  be  stated  that 
the  act  of  1784,  while  it  furnishes  no  evidence 
that  any  such  demand  was  then  expressly  assert- 
ed, yet  adverts  in  the  preamble  to  doubts  that 
have  arisen  about  those  parts  of  the  original  char- 
ter, which  describe  the  persons  who  shall  be  en- 
titled to  the  rights  and  privileges  secured  thereby; 
rendering  it  just  possible  that  such  demand  may 
have  been  made  or  menaced  prior  to  1784;  but 
as  far  as  I  know  there  is  no  record  of  that  fact. 

This  act  of  1784  was  also  passed  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  corporation,  was  accepted  by  it,  be- 
came part  and  parcel  of  its  fundamental  law,  and 
guaranteed  to  the  church  all  the  rights,  privi- 
leges and  immunities  which  it  conferred  or  con- 
firmed. 

The  passage  of  the  law  of  1784  was  rendered 
imperatively  necessary,  no  doubt,  in  order  to 
adapt  the  organization  of  the  church  to  th<'  new 
state  of  things  in  this  country.    The  revolution 


had  occurred.  Previous  to  the  revolution,  Trin- 
ity church  had  organic  relations  to  the  church  of 
England — owing  allegiance  to  the  mother  coun- 
try, and  it  became  necessary  in  viev/  of  the 
equality  which  had  been  established  between  re- 
ligious communities  and  the  separation  between 
church  and  state  which  had  been  made  the  funda- 
mental law  of  this  country,  that  an  act  should  be 
passed  making  the  organization  of  Trinity  church 
conformable  to  the  Republican  constitution  of  the 
state.  This  reorganization,  then,  was  accepted 
by  the  corporation,  acquiesced  in  by  the  corpora- 
tors, and  became  a  contract,  as  did  the  act  of 
1814;  a  valid  and  binding  contract  between  the 
corporation  of  Trinity  and  the  state — the  sove- 
reign power. 

Now,  sir,  this  history  presents  to  us  in  a  vivid 
light,  the  aspect  of  the  question  as  it  now  ap- 
pears before  us.  Here  are  certain  persons  pre- 
senting themselves  before  the  Legislature,  claim- 
ing the  right  to  participate  in  the  control  of  the 
affairs  of  Trinity,  in  derogation  of  a  series  of 
statutes,  and  a  series  of  contracts  entered  into 
between  the  state  an  I  a  private  religious  corpo- 
ration. They  ask  the  state,  without  the  consent 
and  against  the  remonstrance  of  the  other  con- 
tracting party,  to  annul  the  contracts  thus  en- 
tered into  with  so  much  solemnity,  and  acquies- 
ced in  by  all  the  parties  in  interest  for  nearly  a 
century. 

Does  it  not  strike  every  one  at  the  very  thres- 
hold of  the  argumf-nt,  that  if  these  parties  have, 
as  they  claim  to  have,  a  legal  right  to  partici- 
pate in  the  government  and  control  of  Trinity 
corporation,  the  courts  have  abundant  power  to 
give  them  that  right;  to  put  them  in  possession 
of  it;  to  secure  to  them  the  full  benefit  and  en- 
joyment of  it? 

And  yet  they  have  never  asserted  this  right  in 
a  court  of  justice;  although  it  has  been  suggested 
over  and  over  again  to  the  persons  themselves, 
who  claim  the  right,  that  the  corporation  invited 
an  adjudication  of  the  question  by  a  competent 
legal  tribunal.  Any  one  of  them  has  only  to 
offer  his  vote  at  one  of  the  elections  of  the  church, 
and  if  it  is  rejected  to  apply  to  the  courts  for  a 
mandamus  compelling  the  officers  holding  the 
election  to  receive  it;  or  any  one  of  the  claim- 
ants may  commence  a  suit  for  damages  against 
the  partif's  refusing  his  vote,  and  in  that  manner 
test  the  legal  right.  The  English  and  American 
reports  furnish  numerous  illustrations  of  this 
remedy;  and  there  are  familiar  cases  in  the  En- 
glish reports,  where  the  right  was  enforced  with 
damages  against  the  election  authorities,  who  re- 
fused the  votes.  But  the  honorable  Senator  from 
the  2nd  (Mr.  Koxon)  disposed  of  this  suggestion, 
when  made  by  the  Senator  from  the  3Ist  (Mr. 
Wadsworth)  in  a  very  summary  way;  in  a  way 
which  must  have  been  startling  to  those  who 
took  him  literally.  He  said — "why,  what  an 
absurdity!  To  bring  five  or  six  thousand  lawr 
suits  against  Trinity!  Do  these  corporators  de- 
sire to  be  involved  in  a  long  law  suit  with  Trin- 
ity church,  with  all  her  wealth  and  influence?" 
And  he  exclaims  with  well  affected  surprise— 


55 


pratnlations  upon  the  insennity  he  displays  in 
disco/erins  what  all  the  world  will  recognize  as 
a  no/el,  if  not  an  improved,  mode  of  church 
government.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  churches 
in  Xjiv  York— and  there  are  over  fifty  of  them — 
are  each  to  send  one  delegate  to  a  congress  which 
in  hi  turn  is  to  send  its  representatives  to  parti- 
cipate with  the  vestry  in  the  control  and  govern- 
ment of  Trinity  church.  The  Christian  world 
his  supposed  heretofore,  and  all  church  govern- 
menc  and  discipline  have  heretofore  recognized 
the  fact  that  a  church  was  a  unit;  that  it  was 
cJupDsed  of  the  Rector,  Wardens,  Vestrymen 
aai  cj.igregation.  There  is  not,  and  there  can 
not  ba  found,  I  venture  to  say,  in  the  history  of 
any  church,  anything  like  the  plan  and  mode  of 
governatteat  devised  by  the  Senator  from  the 
Sixth. 

Mr.  Brooks:  This  is  an  extraordinary  case. 
Mr.  Sickles:  A  more  extraordinary  case  was 
never  brought  before  a  legislative  body,  and  I  am 
phJ  -ny  honorable  friend  can  admit  that  it  is. 
Yes  si.^,  it  is  not  only  an  extraordinary  case,  but 
aa  extraordinary  remedy;  and  his  remedy  is  the 
mo-e  e'ctraordinary  of  the  two,  as  I  will  endea- 
vor to  show. 

The  first  observation  I  wish  to  make  on  the 
proposition  of  the  Senator  from  the  Sixth,  is 
that  while  all  those  who  have,  since  1814,  assert- 
ed the  right  to  share  in  the  control  of  Trinity 
corporation,  have  based  their  claim  upon  the 
ground  that  the  act  of  that  year  was  unconstitu- 
tional and  void,  the  substitute  of  the  Senator 
from  the  Sixth  recognizes  the  validity  and  con- 
stitutionality of  that  act.  And,  sir,  bear  in 
Blind  that  the  moment  you  do  recognize  the  va- 
lidity and  constitutionality  of  the  act  of  1S14, 
you  give  up  your  whole  case;  because,  if  the 
law  of  1814  is  constitutional  and  valid,  then  is 
the  contract  it  embodies,  binding  on  the  state  and 
the  corporation  and  all  parties  concerned;  secur- 
iing  to  Trinity,  against  all  the  world,  the  rights 
and  privileges  it  confers,  and  depriving  you  of 
any  ground  on  which  you  can  let  in  the  six 
thousand  members  of  other  congregations  now  so 
eager  to  control  her  affairs. 

The  next  most  remarkable  feature  of  this 
proposition  is  that  the  Senator  from  the  Sixth 
makes  churches  vote,  and  not  persons.  He  forms 
an  electoral  college  of  the  representatives  of  fifty 
churches,  and  this  college  is  to  choose  half  a 
Vestry  for  another  church.  It  is  certainly  some- 
thiner  novel,  in  church  government,  to  turn  a 
Vestry  into  a  congress.  It  is  somewhat  strange 
for  corporations,  and  not  the  constituent  members 
of  corporations,  to  vote. 

I  ask  the  Senator  where  he  finds,  in  the  char- 
ter of  Trinity  church,  anything  about  churches 
voting?  And  if  you  do  not  respect  the  law  of 
1S14  or  of  1784,  will  you  not  respect  thecharter, 
■when  you  remember  that  in  every  constitution 
we  have  framed,  we  have  confirmed  and  declared 
inviolable  all  these  charters  of  private  incorpo- 
rations, together  with  their  franchises  and  pos- 
sessions, deserved  from  the  crown.  I  call  on  the 
Senator,  to  point  out  to  the  Senate  that  clause  or 


word  in  the  charter  of  this  corporation  which 
can  be  so  construed  as  to  permit  separate  and 
distinct  corporations  to  vote  in  the  government  of 
Trinity  church.  Why,  sir,  this  point  alone,  I 
venture  to  predict,  with  entire  confidence,  will 
prove  to  be,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Legislature, 
fatal  to  the  measure  proposed  by  the  Sena- 
tor from  the  Sixth  (Mr.  Brooks);  for  if  he  sur- 
renders that  feature  of  his  hill,  he  abandons  all. 
No  where  in  the  charter  can  you  find  any  color  or 
pretext  for  this  proposition,  and  all  will  admit 
tha!  thecharter  is  conclusive;  allwill  admit  that 
the  charter  of  a  private  religious  corporation  can 
not  be  altered  in  any  way  without  the  consent  of 
the  corporation. 

Although  the  Senate,  by  resolution,  recently 
overruled  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  upon  the  Dred  Scott  case,  we 
shall  scarcely,  I  presume,  have  the  temerity  to 
repeat  the  experiment  so  soon  afterwards,  by 
overruling  the  decision  of  the  same  Court  in  the 
memorable  Dartmouth  college  case;  and  until 
we  are  prepared  to  do  so,  we  must  be  content  to 
live  under  that  decision,  and  allow  private  elee- 
mosynary corporations  to  remain  sacred  from  the 
hand  of  the  legislator  or  the  touch  of  the  spoiler. 

No  Sir.  there  is  no  warrant,  no  color  in  the  law 
of  the  land,  for  any  such  attempt  as  is  proposed 
by  the  Senator's  bill,  to  invade  the  vested  rights 
of  this  corporation. 

Although  the  Senator's  proposition  is  strangely 
in  conflict  with  the  claims  heretofore  set  up  by 
the  pretended  corporators,  and  equally  in  con- 
sistent with  the  bill  reported  by  the  committee, 
yet  we  find  the  committee,  the  claimants  and  the 
whole  opposition  eagerly  accepting  it ;  abandon- 
ing their  own  bantling  and  adopting  that  of  my 
honorable  friend,  (Mr.  Brooks).  Why  is  this,  Sir? 
We  shall  see  presently.  It  is  because  it  accom- 
plishes at  least  the  one  grand  object  contemplated 
by  those  who  are  engaged  in  this  movement.  It 
enables  them  to  grasp  the  estates  of  Trinity.  It 
accomplishes  that  in  the  most  effectual  manner; 
and  I  presume  this  end  being  attained,  the  form 
in  which  it  is  to  be  done  is  to  them  a  matter  of 
the  mosi  complete  indifference. 

This  section  does  another  thing  that  is  some- 
what new.  It  makes  one  person  at  the  same 
time  a  member  of  two  church  corporations,  a 
member  of  two  congregations,  and  an  inhabitant 
of  two  parishes;  an  idea  wholly  incongruous 
with  every  notion  of  church  organiaztion ;  and 
directly  in  conflict  with  the  whole  spirit  and  his- 
tory of  the  church  of  England,  out  of  which,  and 
in  accordance  with  the  law  and  spirit  of  which, 
this  charter  emanated. 

Now  let  us  look  at  the  second  section  of  this 
bill. 

"  The  rectors  and  two  church  wardens  and 
twenty  vestrymen  to  be  chosen  as  provided  in 
the  preceding  section,  shall  first  apply  annually 
from  the  income  of  said  corporation  the  sum  of," 
(and  here  is  a  very  significant  blank)  "  for  the 
proper  maintenance  and  support  cf  said  Trinity 
church  and  its  chjpels,  and  such  further  sums  as 
may  be  needed  from  time  to  time,  for  the  repair 


56 


"Why,  the  idea  is  preposterous!"  He  says,  too, 
that  Trinity  would  like  nothing  better  than  to 
go  into  the  courts  with  these  claimants.  Well, 
Sir,  all  I  can  say  is,  that  Trinity  must  be  made 
of  different  material  than  most  of  us,  if  she 
would  like  nothing  better  than  seven  or  eight 
thousand  law  suits  heaped  upon  her  head.  She 
■would  find  herself  in  even  greater  danger  with 
seven  or  eight  thousand  lawyers  after  her,  than 
she  is  now,  however  great  may  be  her  present 
peril.  But  all  this  amounts  to  nothing.  Every 
body  knows  that  any  one  of  these  pretended  cor- 
porators— acting,  if  you  please  upon  consulta- 
tion, and  in  connection  with  the  others — can  con- 
duct such  a  suit  from  its  commencement  to  its 
termination.  And  not  only  would  this  be  en- 
tirely practicable  and  proper,  but  it  would  also 
be  greatly  to  the  relief  of  the  Legislature  of  the 
state;  for  it  would  prevent  the  necessity  of  these 
claimants  coming  here,  invoking  our  interference 
in  matters  beyond  our  jurisdiction  and  of  no  sort 
of  concern  to  us.  For,  Sir,  allow  me  to  say, 
that  this  is  by  no  means  the  forum  for  the  issues 
on  which  this  question  must  turn.  High  as  is 
the  reputation  for  wisdom  and  fairness  of  those 
around  this  circle,  and  in  the  coordinate  branch 
of  the  Legislature,  I  will  tak*"  the  liberty  to  say 
that  it  is  most  fortunate  that  these  high  and  sol- 
emn judicial  questions  are  withdrawn  from  this 
tribunal  and  confided  solely  to  the  judicary.  A 
question  like  this,  involving  the  law  of  contracts, 
requiring  a  knowledge  of  ecclesiastical  law,  of 
colonial  law,  of  constitutional  law,  of  English 
and  American  laws,  is  one  of  the  most  imposing 
that  can  be  submitted  to  any  legal  tribunal,  no 
matter  how  exalted  it  may  be. 

Look  at  these  masses  of  bills  piled  up  be- 
fore us  and  not  acted  upon  in  these  last  days  of  the 
session,  embracing  every  object  of  legislation, 
and  rendering  it  impossible  that  we  should  per- 
fect the  necessary  measures  even  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  State:  and  then  say  whether  we 
should  be  called  upon  now  to  act  on  a  question 
like  this,  the  discussion  and  proper  consideration 
of  which  should  justly  occupy  all  the  remainder 
of  the  session.  Why  is  it  then,  Sir,  in  a  matter 
like  this, —  from  its  nature  and  according  to  the 
law  of  the  land,  a  subject  (or  the  consideration  of 
the  courts, — that  from  1784  to  1 8.07,  the  men 
who  have  asserted  this  pretended  claim  have  al- 
ways avoided  the  legal  tribunals?  Why  do  they 
come  here  asking  us  to  usurp  the  functions  of 
the  legal  tribunals,  and  to  grant  them  the  relief 
they  have  never  had  the  hardihood  to  seek  at  the 
hands  of  any  court  of  justice?  Do^^s  it  not  show 
an  utter  want  of  confidence  in  the  right  and  just- 
ice of  their  pretended  claim?  Has  it  been  the 
practice  of  the  Legislature  of  New  York  to  de- 
vote day  after  day,  and  week  after  week,  to  the 
consideration  of  controversies  about  private 
rights,  where  the  parties  have  a  complete  rem- 
edy in  the  courts?  What  has  been  the  practice 
of  the  Honorable  Senator  from  the  22d  (Mr. 
No  >  cii).  fii  (i  his  piedtcf  fscrat  the  head  of  the 
Judiciary  committee  on  such  questions?  Has  he 
considered  it  his  duty — had  his  predecessors, 


considered  it  their  duty,  to  mature  and  present 
bills  to  the  consideration  of  the  Legislature  ad- 
justing controverted  questions  about  private  pro- 
perty belonging  either  to  individuals  or  corpora- 
tions, when  the  parties  have  an  ample  remedy  in 
the  courts  of  law?  Never,  Sir.  They  have  beeo 
turned  over  to  the  courts  where  they  properly 
belong.  And  what  is  there  in  this  question  to 
induce  this  extraordinary  exception  to  a  uniform 
rule,  based  upon  eminently  proper  considerations 
of  public  policy? 

Now,  Sir,  let  us  look  somewhat  in  detail  at 
the  terms  of  the  Bill  before  the  Senate.  In  what 
I  have  to  say  I  shall  confine  my  attention,  cer- 
tainly at  present,  more  especially  to  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  Senator  from  the  6th  (Mr.  Brooks) — 
I  believe  he  calls  it — or  it  is  called  for  him — a 
compromise;  something  between  the  extreme 
ngor  of  the  measure  urged  by  these  claimants 
and  presented  by  my  colleague  from  the  5th 
(Mr.  Spencer),  and  the  opposite  view  taken  by 
the  corporation  of  Trinity.  We  shall  be  able  to 
see,  very  soon,  how  much  claim  it  has  to  be  cal- 
led a  "  compromise."  I  think  if  any  thing  can 
be  worse,  it  is  infintely  worse  than  the  original 
proposition  presented  by  the  Senator  from  the 
5th  (Mr.  Spencer);  more  in  derogation  of  all 
those  principles  on  which  the  private  rights  of 
persons  and  corporations  rest,  and  more  subver- 
sive  of  good  government  in  religious  corporations. 
Let  me  read  the  first  section  of  his  bill: 

"M-  The  church  wardens  and  vestrymen  of 
Trinity  church  in  the  city  of  New  York,  shall 
hereafter  be  chosen  as  follows: 

"One  church  warden  and  ten  vestrymen  shall 
b3  chosen  by  the  pewholders  and  communicants 
of  5aid  Trinity  c  iurch  and  its  chapels  entitled  to 
to  vote  under  the  second  section  of  the  act  enti- 
tled '  An  act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  corpora- 
tion of  Trinity  church,  in  New  York,  and  for 
other  purposes,'  passed  January  25,  1814.  The 
other  church  warden  and  the  remaining  ten  ves- 
trymen shall  be  chosen  by  delegates  elected  by 
the  vestries  of  the  several  protestant  episcopal 
churches  in  said  city,  other  than  Trinity  church 
and  its  chapels,  in  union  with  the  convention  of 
the  d  ocese  of  the  state  of  New  York,  in  the  man- 
ner hereinafter  mentioned,  that  is  [o  say:  on  the 
first  Monday  of  March,  in  each  year  hereafter, 
the  vestry  of  each  of  such  last  aforesaid  churches, 
shall  by  a  majority  of  votes  elect  a  delegate  to  a 
convention  to  be  holden  for  the  choice  of  the  said 
church  warden  and  ten  vestrymen  of  the  corpor- 
ation of  Trinity  church  last  mentioned,  of  the 
election  of  which  delegate  a  certificate  shall  be 
made  and  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  vestry  of 
such  church,  and  attested  by  the  clerk  of  the  ves- 
try. The  persons  so  elected  as  delegates  shall 
assemble  in  Trinity  church  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  on  Tuesday  in  Easter  week,  in  each  year, 
at  eleven  o'clock  in  the  forenoon,  and  proceed  to 
the  election,  by  ballot,  of  the  said  one  church- 
wardsn  and  ten  vestrymen  of  the  said  corporation 
of  Trinity  church." 

Now  I  trust  my  colleague  from  the  sixth  (Mr. 
Brooks),  will  permit  me  to  offer  him  my  con- 


57 


or  renovation  of  such  church  edifices  and  their 
furniture  :  all  which  shall  be  disbursed  under  the 
sole  direction  and  discretion  of  the  rector  and  the 
church  warden  and  ten  vestrymen  so  to  be  chosen 
by  the  pew  holders  and  communicants  of  said 
church." 

It  cannot  be  concealed  that  the  congregation  of 
Trinity  church,  ought  to  be  very  thankful  for  the 
liberality  indicated  here;  for  the  disposition  so 
graciously  shown,  which  allows  them,  out  their 
own  estates,  a  donation  for  the  support  of  their 
own  church.  How  nnuch  that  donation  will  be — 
iiow  often  it  will  be  reduced,  and  how  small  it 
will  eventually  become,  when  fifty  churches  are 
brought  in  to  overcome  the  votes  which  slie  and 
her  chapels  may  possess  in  this  congress  of 
churches;  how  much  it  will  be  when  the  estate, 
now  magnificent  and  capable  of  accomplishing 
infinite  good  in  the  city  and  state  for  the  cause  of 
religion,  shall  have  been  squandered  and  con- 
sumed by  fifty  churches,  among  whom  it  is  to 
be  divided — all  this  it  is  not  difficult  to  foresee. 

But  observe,  sir,  they  are  kind  enough  to 
leave  to  Trinity  all  the  religious  cares  and  res- 
ponsibilities of  th'!  parish;  the  support  of  the 
poor,  the  relief  of  the  sick,  providing  the  means 
of  religious  worship  in  the  lower  portion  of  the 
city; — these  fitly  churches  would  leave  to  Trinity 
all  these  pious  duties, and  graciously  relieve  her  of 
a  portion  of  her  temporal  cares,  especially  the 
care  of  her  property.  They  say  to  Trinity, 
"  you  may  attend  to  your  pious  mission  down 
town;  we  have  all  gone  up  town  to  adorn  the 
wealthy  and  fashionable  portions  of  the  city;  we 
would  like  to  quit  your  church  and  take  your 
property  wiih  us;  our  congregations  have  ac- 
quired so  much  of  their  own,  that  we  have 
learned  well  how  to  manage  property — particu- 
larly how  to  keep  it  in  our  own  pockets.  You 
vhave  a  magnificent  heritage;  and  while  you,  in 
your  eminent  piety,  are  engrossed  with  the  care 
of  the  poor,  the  sick  and  the  emigrants  in  the 
vulgar  portions  of  the  city,  we  can  bestow  our 
attention  upon  your  charming  estates." 

Yes,  sir,  a  stipend  is  to  be  appropriated  annu- 
ally for  the  support  of  the  church,  and — another 
kindness — they  will  allow  Trinity  herself  to 
spend  the  generous  gift,  all  by  herself — free 
from  the  supervision  and  control  of  legislative 
or  ecclesiastical  critics.  Let  us  now  see  what  is 
to  be  done  with  the  rest  of  the  estate.  I  will 
read  the  third  section  of  the  Senator's  bill: 

"The  rector  and  the  said  vestry  of  Trinity 
church,  to  be  elected  as  aforesaid,  shall  apply  the 
income  of  said  corporation,  and  all  proceeds  of 
the  sales  of  the  property  thereof,  to  the  payment, 
first,  of  the  interest  upon  its  debt  and  to  extin- 
guishment of  so  much  of  the  principal  thereof, 
as  they  shall  deem  expedient,  until  the  debt  shall 
be  wholly  paid;  and  the  residue  of  said  income 
and  proceeds  to  the  support  and  extension  of 
RELIGION  and  RELIGIOUS  EDUCATION 
in  the  city  and  STATE  of  New  York." 

Will  my  colleague  (Mr.  Brooks),  after  he  has 
found  that  portion  of  the  original  charter  of 
Trinity  church  which  lets  in  churches,  and  not 


persons,  to  vote,  show  me  that  other  portion  of 
the  charter  which  bestows  this  property  on  the 
State  of  New  York,  as  contradistinguished  from 
the  city  of  New  York? 

Mr.  Brooks:  Trinity  gives  to  the  State 
now 

Mr.  Sickles:  Trinity  g-ms.  Sir,  when  she 
pleases — what  she  pleases — and  to  whom  she 
pleases.  But  the  Legislature  can  not  give  away 
her  property. 

There  is  a  great  deal  of  difference  between 
giving  away  your  own  property  and  suffering  it 
to  be  taken  from  you  by  force  and  given  away  by 
others. 

Suppose  the  Senator  should  own — as  I  hope  he 
does — four  fine  houses  in  the  city;  and  suppose 
he  should  think  proper,  for  good  and  sufficient 
reasons,  in  his  judgment,  to  give  one  or  two  to 
his  friends;  would  that  justify  the  Legislature 
in  appropriating  the  remainder  of  his  property 
to  a  similar  use?  giving  as  our  reason — "  why, 
you  gave  away  a  couple  of  your  houses  your- 
self, and  therefore  what  right  have  you  to  object 
to  the  Legislature  giving  away  a  couple  more  for 
you!"  No,  Sir,  we  have  here  a  vast  estate  con- 
secrated to  religion  and  religious  education  to  be 
expended  by  the  persons  and  in  the  manner  set 
forth  in  the  charter  and  subsequent  grants. — 
The  wildest  and  widest  construction  ever  put  up- 
on the  charter  is,  that  the  grant  was  to  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  city  of  New  York,  in  communion 
with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church.  This 
limitation,  at  least,  has  always  been  recognized 
even  by  those  who  have  disregarded  all  others. 

The  estate  is  to  be  distributed  broad- 
cast over  this  State,  and  this,  we  are  told,  is 
"no  invasion  of  the  charter;"  is  no  encroach- 
ment upon  vested  rights!  Why,  Sir,  what  no- 
tion can  Senators  have  of  vested  rights,  if  this  is 
the  construction  put  upon  the  phrase?  If  this  is 
the  "conservatism"  of  my  colleague,  Mr.  Brooks, 
and  of  his  party,  save  me  from  it!  Tammany 
Hall  never  ventured  upon  anything  so  recklftss 
and  so  unjust,  and  she  never  will. 

Mr.  Brooks:  Would  you  have  dissuaded  her 
from  it,  if  she  had? 

Mr.  Sickles:  Tammany  Hall  was  never  so 
low  in  political  morality  as  to  require  any  inter- 
vention to  prevent  her  from  entering  upon  a  de- 
liberate scheme  of  spoliation,  such  as  this  is  de- 
monstrated to  be. 

No,  Sir,  if  I  understand  this  proposition — and 
I  think  I  do — it  is  an  illustration  of  a  very  pro- 
gressive age,  and  of  a  very  progressive  people. 
The  Senator.  (Mr.  Brooks)  who  represents  the 
great  American  party,  finds  it  necessary  to  be 
moving,  and  he  has  become  impetuous.  He  can 
no  longer  stand  by  principles  recognized  and  es- 
tablished so  long  ago,  and  adhered  to  with  such 
monotonous  fidelity;  he  must  have  something 
new.  Those  who  propose  to  divide  the  pro- 
perty of  Trinity  among  the  city  chuiches  only, 
are  now  behind  the  age — "  old  fogies."  Two  or 
three  individuals  as  long  ago  as  1814,  set  up  the 
claim  on  behalf  of  the  members  of  the  other 
Episcopal  churches  in  the  city,  that  they  had 


8 


58 


a  right  to  participate  in  the  control  of  the 
property  and  in  the  direction  of  the  church 
and  chapels  of  the  parish  of  Trinity.  But 
we  find  the  Senator  from  the  6th  making 
a  great  stride  beyond  this.  Until  he  came  into 
the  field  with  his  lively  notions  of  progress,  no 
pretence  was  ever  set  up,  under  color  of  law, 
that  a  division  of  the  property  outside  the  city 
was  ever  possible  under  the  charter.  But  the 
Senator  from  the  6th  (Mr,  Brooks) — the  progres- 
sive, the  radical,  the  agrarian  Senator — says  that 
the  property  shall  be  distributed  throughout  the 
Sta'e  of  New  York;  and  not  for  ecclesiastical 
purposes  only;  not  for  the  erection  and  support 
of  Protestant  Episcopal  churches;  but  for  the 
"  support  and  extension  of  religion  and  religious 
education  "  generally,  in  the  city  as  well  as  the 
State  of  New  York. 

At  this  point,  Mr.  Sickles  was  interrujited  by 
Mr.  Richardson,  who  announced  that  he  had  just 
received  intelligence  of  the  death  of  a  member  of 
the  other  House,  Mr.  Babcock,  of  Oneida,  and  in 
view  of  that  melancholy  occurrence,  he  desired 
to  move  an  adjournment  of  the  Senate.  Where- 
upon Mr.  Sickles  gave  way,  and  the  bill  was 
made  a  special  order  for  Saturday,  at  12  M. 

IN  SENATE  April  4th-llX  A.  M. 

Mr.  Sickles  not  appearing  in  his  seat,  the 
president  did  not  announce  the  special  order  (the 
New  York  Charter  Bill),  at  11  1-2  o'clock. 

Mr.  Brooks  said:  Mr.  President — The  New 
York  Charter  Bill  has  been  made  the  special  or- 
der for  1 1  1-2  o'clock,  and  that  hour  has  already 
passed.  The  Trinity  Church  Bill  is  the  special 
order  for  12,  and  I  shall  therefore  move  to  post- 
pone the  consideration  of  the  Charter  Bill. 

Mr.  TJPHAM:  1  understand  that  the  Senator 
from  the  3d,  who  is  entitled  to  the  Hoor  on  the 
Trinity  Church  Bill,  is  detained  Irom  his  seat 
unavoidably,  in  consequence  of  the  serious  illness 
of  hi?  wife.  He  does  not  propose,  however,  to 
delay  the  final  vote  on  the  bill.  I  therefore  sug- 
gest that  the  special  order  be  postponed  until 
Monday. 

Mr.  Brooks:  I  desire  to  be  heard,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, about  one  hour  on  this  question,  particu- 
larly after  the  attacks  which  have  been  made  on 
the  substitute  offerred  by  me  for  the  bill  reported 
by  the  committee.  As  I  also  understand  that  the 
final  action  on  the  bill  is  not  to  be  delayed,  I 
move  that  it  be  made  a  special  order  for  Monday, 
at  11  o'clock. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

IN  SENATE  April  6tll— 11  A.  M. 

The  president  announced  the  special  order,  and 
Mr.  Darling  took  the  chair. 

Mr.  Wadsworth  said:  Mr.  Chairman — The 
floor,  as  I  understand  it,  was  occupied  by  the 
senator  from  the  3d  (Mr.  Sickles),  the  last  time 
this  bill  was  under  consideration,  and  when  the 
committee  rose.  [  wish  to  state  that  in  conse- 
quence of  severe  illness  in  his  family,  and  the 
fatigue  he  has  undergone  in  consequence,  he  will 
be  unable  to  proceed  with  the  argument  this 
morning.    He  would  be  obliged  to  any  other 


nnember  who  would  now  addre.ss  the  committee, 
and  I  therefore  move  that  if  any  senator  desires 
to  present  his  views,  he  be  permitted  to  do  so  at 
this  time. 

Mr.  Richardson:  When  will  the  honorable 
senator  from  the  3d  be  ready  to  resume  his  argu- 
ment? 

Mr.  Sickles:  Mr.  Chairman — I  beg  to  say 
that  I  throw  myself  on  the  indulgence  of  the 
Senate.  I  am  willing  to  proceed  now  if  the 
Senate  shall  ihink  proper  to  require  that  I  should 
do  so;  but  it  would  be  an  exceedingly  painful 
task.  I  shall,  however,  endeavor  to  continue 
my  remarks  as  soon  as  possible. 

Mr.  Richardson:  Will  it  be  to-day? 

Mr.  Sickles:  I  hope  so. 

Mr.  Pattkrson:  Then  I  suggest  we  put  the 
matter  off  until  4  1-2  o'clock. 

Mr.  Wadsworth:  I  think  the  senator  had 
better  say  12  1-2  o'clock.  The  senator  from  the 
6th  (Mr.  Brooks),  desires  to  address  the  com- 
mittee, and  he  will  be  here  in  the  train  at  11  1-2 
o'clock.  He  may  be  willing  then  to  address  the 
Senate. 

Mr.  Patterson  :  We  had  better  say  4  o'clock, 
and  then  go  through  with  the  matter,  and  pro- 
ceed with  other  business  now.  We  have  spent 
too  much  time  over  it  already. 

Mr.  Ramsey:  I  should  prefer  postponing  it 
one  hour,  and  thus  we  can  give  the  senator  from 
the  6th  an  opportunity  to  speak. 

Mr.  NoxoN:  If  I  understood  the  senator  from 
the  6th,  the  other  day,  he  expressed  a  desire  to 
make  his  rei>ly,  after  Mr.  Sickles  had  finally 
closed. 

Mr.  Richardson:  Yes,  that  is  so.  Will  the 
Senate  allow  me  to  consult  a  few  minutes  with 
Senator  Spencer? 

After  a  tew  minutes  spent  in  consultation,  Mr. 
Ferdon  moved  that  the  committee  rise  and  report 
progress  on  the  bill. 

This  was  carried,  and  the  committee  of  the 
whole  rose. 

In  the  Senate,  Mr.  Patterson  moved  that  the 
bill  be  made  a  special  order  for  Monday  at  4  P. 
M.,  and  the  mjtion  prevailed. 

Mr.  Darling  took  the  chair. 

Mr.  Sickles:  Mr.  Chairman — I  ought  to 
apologize  to  the  Senate  for  any  delay  which  has 
occurred  in  the  progress  of  this  discussian,  for 
reasons  personal  to  myself;  and  the  earnest  so- 
licitude I  have  felt  in  the  question  before  ns, 
while  it  has  justified  me  in  claiming  the  indul- 
gence of  the  Senate,  increases  the  sense  of  obli- 
gation imposed  upon  me  by  the  courtesy  of  sena- 
tors in  postponing  the  consideration  of  the  sub- 
ject until  it  was  convenient  for  me  to  be  pres- 
ent. 

When  the  bill  was  last  before  the  Senate,  I 
was  commenting  upon  that  section  of  the  substi- 
tute offered  by  the  senator  from  the  Gth  (Mr. 
Brcoks),  which  proposes  to  apply  the  residue  of 
the  income  and  proceeds  of  the  estate  belonging 
to  Trinity  church  to  the  support  and  extension 
of  religious  education  "in  the  city  and  state  of 
New  York."  I  called  on  my  honorable  colleague 


« 


59 


for  some  information  as  to  the  legality  and  pro- 
priety  of  this  provision,  derived  from  the  char- 
ter of  Trinity  church,  or  from  the  grant  by  which 
Queen  Anne  conveyed  the  lands  to  the  church, 
which  are  now  the  chief  source  of  its  income. 

Every  argument  heretofore  made  on  this  sub- 
ject by  those  who  have  sought  to  depose  the  cor- 
poration of  Trinity  from  the  control  of  her  es- 
tates, has  proceeded  on  the  ground  that  at  far- 
thest, the  churches,  or  the  Episcopalians  in  ths 
city  of  New  York,  are  the  beneficiaries  of  thu 
fund.  iVever  until  now,  when  the  proposition  is 
made  by  the  senator  from  the  6th  (Mr.  Brooks), 
has  it  been  pretended  that  the  state  had  any  righ' 
at  all  to  participate  in  the  fund;  or  that  the  leg- 
islature of  the  state  had  any  authority  to  divert 
by  statute,  any  portion  of  that  fund  for  the  be.ae- 
fit  of  anybody  outside  the  city.  True  it  is  that 
Trinity  church,  in  the  voluntary  distribution  of 
the  fund,  regarding  it  as  confided  to  her  in  trust 
for  the  advancement  of  the  great  cause  of  relig- 
ion, and  religious  education,  has  never  allowed 
herself  to  be  restrained  by  the  limits  of  the  pariah 
or  of  the  city;  but  what  is  commendable  in  her, 
as  an  act  of  generosity  in  appropriating  her  owb, 
■when  untaken  by  the  state  through  force,  would 
become  an  outrage. 

Sir,  it  is  true  that  here  and  elsewhere,  the 
motives  which  have  actuated  Trinity  church  in 
her  liberal  gifts  to  the  country  churches,  h"ve 
been  impunged.    In  this  debate  she  has  been 
charged  with  an  effort  to  "  subsidize  the  country 
churches."    A  more  cruel  construction  could  not 
be  put  upon  the  liberality  with  which  she  has 
distributed  her  gifts  all  over  the  commonwealth. 
She  has  been  charged  with  attempting  by  her 
gifts  to  gain  co-operation  and  support  here,  in 
he."-  struggle  in  the  legislature.    Sir,  I  think 
such  a  charge,  from  this  time  forth,  will  come 
with  a  very  bad  grace  from  those  who  support 
kthis  bill.     Here  t»  an  attempt  to  enlist  the 
[country  churches  against  the  very  hand  that  has 
Ifed  them;  against  those  whom  they  have  hereto- 
I fore  regarded,  in  the  bes)  and  truest  sense,  as 
[brethren.    You  seek,  by  inserting  this  clause  in 
your  bill,  to  win  them  to  your  support  against 
the  corporation  which,  for  a  long  series  of  years, 
has  been  their  steadfast  friend.  After  this,  then, 
let  us  hear  no  more  of  endeavors  "to  influence," 
•>f  attempts  "to  subsidize"  the  country  churches, 
or  of  "bids"  made  for  their  support. 

But,  Sir,  perhaps  from  the  pressure  of  the  ar- 
gument based  on  the  charter,  the  grants,  and 
the  subsequent  laws.  Senators  will  find  them- 
selves compelled  to  strikeout  the  word  "  State," 
and  to  limit  the  application  of  the  residue  of 
the  proceeds,  to  the  city  churches.  Well  then 
let  us  see  what  becomes  of  the  aid  expected  to 
be  appropriated  to  the  country  parishes.  Let 
us  see  who  stands  as  the  sincere  friend  of  those 
parishes.  Pass  either  the  bill  reported  by  the 
committee,  or  that  introduced  by  the  Senator 
from  the  6lh  (Mr.  Brooks,)  and  you  give  the 
control  of  the  fund  to  fifty-four  city  churches, 
and  entitle  them  to  elect  a  vestry  that  will  dis- 
pose of  the  money  as  those  fifty-four  churches 


see  fit.  After  they  have  helped  themselves,  as 
they  very  obviously  mean  to  do,  for  they  can 
have  no  other  object  in  seeking  to  get  this  law, 
how  much,  I  ask,  will  be  left  for  the  churches  in 
the  interior  of  the  State?  Not  one  farthing. 
The  only  possible  mode  by  which  the  surplus  in- 
come of  Trinity  church  can  ever  be  applied  to 
the  relief  of  those  really  needing  it,  is  to  leave 
the  control  of  the  fund  in  the  vestry,  where  it 
lawfully  belonKs;  the  vestry,  free  from  the  con- 
trol of  other  city  congregations,  will  exercise  a 
just  discrimination  between  the  wealthy  church- 
es in  New  York,  and  the  feeble  establishments 
in  the  interior  of  the  State.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  a  large  share  of  the  pressure  brought  to 
bear  upon  the  legislature  from  the  city  churches 
in  favor  of  this  measure,  has  been  induced  by 
their  failure  to  obtain  money  from  the  vestry  of 
Trinity,  the  vestry  preferring  to  give  their  sur- 
plus means  to  the  poor  churches  in  the  interior 
of  the  State.  If  the  demands  of  these  opulent 
beggars  of  the  city  congregations, — representing 
masses  of  wealth  beyond  the  value  of  the  estates 
of  Trinity  herself,  if  their  demands  for  money 
had  been  submitted  to,  we  should  not  find  them 
here,  clamorous  for  plunder.  But  if  Trinity 
had  yielded  to  their  enormous  exactions  how 
would  it  have  been  possible  for  her  to  aid  the 
interior  parishes,  that  so  much  needed  her  assist- 
ance? 

The  fourth  section  of  this  bill  is  as  follows: 
"  ^  4.  The  church  warden  and  ten  ves- 
trymen so  to  be  chosen  by  the  pew  holders 
and  communicants  of  Trinity  church  and  its  cha- 
pels, shall  exclusively  possess  and  confol  the 
church  edifices  with  their  furniture  and  the 
church  yards  and  cemeteries  belonging  to  said 
church,  and  shall  protect  the  sami  from  trespass 
or  AGGRESSION.  The  said  warden  and  vestry- 
men in  this  section  mentioned  shall  also  ex- 
clusively choose  the  assistant  ministers  and 
o'her  parish  officers,  and  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  rector,  shall  direct  its  religious 
services,  and  the  diibursement  of  its  charitable 
collections  .''^ 

This,  too,  is  a  very  liberal  section.  It  is  con- 
ceived in  the  very  spirit  of  tenderness  and  charity 
to  Trinity  church.  In  this  respect  it  is  consistent 
with  other  parts  of  the  bill.  By  the  second  sec- 
tion of  your  bill,  you  give  her  a  donation  out  of 
her  own  estate,  to  take  care  of  her  church,  to 
keep  it  in  repair,  to  pay  her  priests  and  to  sup- 
ply her  communion  table;  by  the  third  seciion 
you  distribute  the  balance  generally  over  the  city 
and  state;  but  by  this  fourth  section  you  reserve 
to  her  for  the  present, — until  an  occasion  shall 
arise  for  a  fre?h  law  and  a  new  division, — her 
chapels,  her  church  yards,  cemeteries,  and  her 
communion  plate;  and  you  go  on  and  tell  her 
that  she  must  protect  the  same  from  ^'■trespass 
and  AoGREssios."  You  command  her  to  protect 
the  little  that  is  to  be  graciously  left  to  her,  from 
"  trespass  or  aggression."  Sir,  I  think  there  is 
a  bitter  irony  in  those  words.  After  taking 
away  from  her,  in  defiance  of  the  law  of  the  land, 
four-fifths  of  her  estates  by  an  aggressive  act  not 


60 


paralleled  in  this  country  for  injustice,  you  coolly 
tell  her  she  must  protect  the  rest  from  "  trespass 
or  aggression!"  If,  either  of  these  bills  should 
pass,  vain  will  be  ihe  effort — foolish  the  attempt 
of  Trinity  or  any  other  church  to  save  itself  from 
encroachment  or  spoliation.  You  give  by  your 
own  act,  a  fatal  sanction  to  such  schemes.  You 
encourage  all  who  desire  to  imitate  them,  and 
disarm  all  who  would  oppose  them.  You  degrade 
yourselves  to  the  level  of  those  vampires,  who — 
to  improve  a  street — would  invade  her  church 
yards  and  disturb  the  sacred  remains  which  have 
so  long  honored  the  earth  with  which  they 
mingle. 

Among  the  proofs  which  this  bill  discloses  of 
the  extreme  liberality  of  its  framers,  there  is  yet 
another  to  be  mentioned.  You  allow  Trinity  to  dis- 
burse the  charitable  collections  made  in  her  own 
church  and  chapels.  That  certainly  ought  to  re- 
ceive an  emphatic  acknowledgment.  This  is  a 
concession  to  her  in  the  purest  tone  of  Christian 
brotherhood,  and  it  is  conspicuously  and  industri- 
ously spread  out  in  the  statute  which  despoils  her, 
as  if  in  mitigation  of  the  wrong. 

Trinity  church  has  out  lived  all  the  tumult, 
and  fluctuations,  and  changes  of  a  democratic 
government,  passing  through  all  the  stages  of 
its  progress  from  the  first  incipient  experiment, 
down  to  its  apparently  successful  consummation, 
she  has  survived  years  of  armed  occupation  of  the 
city  by  a  foreign  foe;  for  two  centuries  she  has 
escapfd  the  hand  of  the  aggressor.  But  as  if  in 
contradiction  of  the  laws  of  human  nature-,  as  if 
to  confound  all  reason ;  at  a  moment  like  this, 
when  it  seemed  as  if  the  day  of  her  security  and 
repose  had  come,  she  is  menaced  by  a  danger 
more  formidable  than  any  she  has  ever  before 
encountered.  Her  possessions,  which  the  En- 
glish enemy  would  not  confiscate  or  disturb, 
which  the  mob  has  always  spared,  the  State,  her 
natural  protector,  is  now  about  to  seize  and 
control. 

And  what  has  she  done  to  justify  all  this  ? 
What  is  the  ofTence  of  her  Rector,  Wardens  i.nd 
Vestrymen?  are  they  not  good  men?  Have  they 
not  faithfully  fulfilled  their  trust?  Have  they 
ever  been  impeached  anywhere,  until  we  have 
heard  something  like  it  in  this  debate,  and  to 
which  I  will  refer  presently?  What  has  she  done, 
or  what  have  those  connected  with  her  done  to 
excuse  and  palliate  this  assault  upon  her  vested 
rights? 

Sir,  this  business  of  partitioning  the  estates  of 
those  over  whom  we  have  no  legislative  control, 
has  never  been  successful — is  always  dangerous, 
and  is  associated  in  the  minds  of  men  with  trans- 
actions like  the  partition  of  Poland,  the  appro- 
priation of  the  property  of  the  Orleans  family 
by  Louis  Napoleon,  and  the  exploits  of  those 
Mexican  Statesmen  who  alternately  rob  the 
treasury  and  fleece  the  church.  This  is  an  as- 
sociation which  I  should  think,  my  conservative 
friend,  the  Senator  from  the  6th,  would  like  to 
avoid. 

There  is  a  difference,  between  the  proposition 
of  my  colleague  from  the  6th,  (Mr.  Brooks), 


and  the  one  reported  from  the  select  committee 
by  another  colleague,  the  Senator  from  the  0th, 
(Mr.  Spencer),  which  in  justice  to  one  or  the 
other,  ought  to  be  mentioned.  The  proposition 
of  the  special  committee,  disorganizes  the  church 
and  seizes  the  estate.  The  substitute  of  the 
Senator  from  the  6th,  spares  the  church  for  the 
present,  but  takes  the  property.  That  is  the 
whole  difference,  stated  in  a  few  words.  The 
bill  reported  by  the  special  committee  assails 
the  church  because  it  proposes  to  give  to  the 
congregations  of  fif-y  outside  churches,  the  ab- 
solute control  of  Trinity  church,  of  which  they 
are  not  members. 

It  allows  the  members  of  other  congregations 
to  appoint  her  Rector  and  the  Ministers  for  her 
chapels;  anditgivestoaboardof  Wardens  and  Ves- 
trymen, which  her  congregation  does  not  elect, 
the  absolute  control  of  her  church  edifices,  her 
churchyards,  cemeteries  and  land,  with  power 
to  sell,  appropriate  and  use  any  and  all  of  this 
property  as  they  see  fit.  The  proposition  of  the 
Senator  from  the  G'h  (Mr.  Brooks),  gives  the 
church  the  technical  and  apparent  control,  for 
the  time  being,  of  her  buildings,  graveyards, 
communiontable  and  charitable  collections;  but 
divides  with  those  outside  the  church  the  control 
of  all  the  remainder  of  her  estate,  and  as- 
sumes to  direct  by  legislative  enactment  the 
objects  to  be  benefited  by,  and  the  mode  of  ap- 
propriation of  the  private  property  of  a  religious 
corporation. 

I  have  invited  my  friends  on  the  other  side 
already  to  answer  several  questions.  I  have 
another  one  now  that  I  propose  to  submit  to 
them,  to  which  it  will  be  well  for  them  to  give 
attention;  and  I  think  they  are  bound  to  answer 
it,  before  they  press  either  of  their  bills  upon  the 
Senate.  I  desire  to  be  informed  how  it  is  that 
this  legislature  can  pass  either  of  the  two  bills 
now  before  it,  if,  as  it  said,  the  legislature  had 
no  constitutional  authority  to  pass  the  act  of  1814. 

If,  as  all  the  lawyers  and  laymen  against  Trin- 
ity have  contended,  the  act  of  1814  was  uncon- 
stitutional as  an  act  of  "judicial  legislation;" 
if  the  legislature  had  no  right  to  pass  it  because  it 
was  an  interference  with  the  concerns  of  a  pri- 
vate corporation;  if  it  disfranchised  four  thou- 
sand corporators;  if,  in  violation  of  the  charter 
and  their  vested  rights,  these  persons  were  by  it 
denied  the  right  to  vote  at  the  annual  elections 
for  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  church; 
and  if  the  act  of  1814,  which  did  all  this,  as  you 
contend,  be  unconstitutional,  because  it  was  an 
act  of  "  judicial  legislation,"  and  an  interference 
with  the  government  and  property  of  a  pri- 
vate religious  corporation;  how  is  it  th<it  tho 
legislature  gets  the  authority  to  pass  either  the 
bill  introduced  by  the  Senator  from  the  6th,  (Mr. 
Brooks),  or  that  reported  by  the  special  coinmit- 
tee,  both  of  which  equally  undertake  to  provide 
for  the  government,  and  the  management  of  the 
property  of  the  same  private  religious  corpora- 
tion? I  hope  to  be  favored  with  an  answer  to 
this  respectful  enquiry,  and  will  pause  to  get  it 
now,  if  it  is  ready. 


61 


Senators  will  bear  in  mind  that  in  all  these 
documents  that  have  been  laid  on  our  tables,  as- 
sailing the  act  of  1814,  and  justifying  these  bills; 
and  in  all  the  arguments  which  have  been  made 
on  this  floor  and  in  the  committee  room,  the 
ground  has  been  distinctly  taken,  that  the  legis- 
lature had  no  right  to  pass  the  act  of  1814,  be- 
cause it  disfranchises  the  members  of  the  other 
Episcopalian  congregations  who  claimed  the 
right  under  the  charter  to  vote  at  the  election 
for  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity  church. 

This  argument  is  no  where  more  forcibly  and 
more  eloquently  put,  than  in  the  very  able  ad- 
dress of  Mr.  Porter,  before  the  committee;  and 
I  will  add  that  no  where  in  the  State  could  be 
found  a  lawyer  more  competent  to  make  an  ar- 
gument before  any  tribunal,  I  therefore  do  the 
highest  justice  to  the  other  side,  when  I  take 
Mr.  Porter's  argument  as  the  best  statement  of 
their  position ;  and  I  will  establish  by  that  argu- 
ment, beyond  a  question  or  a  doubt,  that  the 
legislature  has  no  right  to  pass  either  of  these 
bills.  If  I  do  not  establish  that  position,  then  I 
am  willing  to  abandon  this  discussion. 

Now  hear  Mr.  Porter  at  page  23  of  his  report- 
ed argument  before  the  committee: 

"  The  disfranchised  corporators  appeal  to  the 
Senate,  not  for  favors  but  for  justice.  They  are 
corporators  by  the  original  charter  of  1697,  by 
the  colonial  charter  of  1704,  by  the  royal  grant 
of  1705.  by  the  recognition  of  Queen  Anne,  in 
1714,  by  the  renewed  legislative  charter  of  1784, 
by  the  subsequent  state  laws  of  1788.  Their 
rights  were  unquestioned  until  1812.  They 
were  unimpaired  until  1814.  The  corporators 
■were  then  divested  of  their  franchises  by  a  mere 
act  of  legislative  will,  on  the  application  of  the 
trustees  to  exclude  the  beneficiaries  of  the  trust. 
The  exclusion  was  without  their  consent  and 
without  cause." 

Again,  on  page  28: 

"  The  matters  developed  in  the  course  of  this 
investigation  leave  no  room  for  doubt  that  the 
law  of  1814,  so  far  as  it  was  an  act  of  confisca- 
tion and  disfranchisement,  WAS  UNCONSTI- 
TUTIONAL AND  VOID.  It  excluded  corpo- 
rators from  their  chartered  rights  without  their 
consent,  thus  directly  impairing  the  obligation  of 
contracts  in  violation  of  the  federal  constitution, 
and  depriving  citizens  of  their  property  and 
franchises  without  due  process  of  law  in  viola- 
tion of  the  state  conttitution.  It  was  an  act  of 
naked  judicial  legislation,  and  not  only  assumed 
to  pass  judgment  upon  the  rights  of  private  citi- 
zens who  had  no  oppirtunity  to  be  heard,  but  pro- 
nounced a  judgment  directly  at  war  with  their 
rights  as  declared  by  the  dteds  of  trust,  and 
guaranteed  by  previous  iatcs." 

And  this  one  further  extract  from  pages  43  and 
44. 

"  Even  aside  from  these  considerations,  no 
American  statesman,  lawyer  or  jurist  could  en- 
tertain a  doubt,  in  view  of  the  facts  to  which 
your  attention  has  been  called  in  the  course  of 
this  investigation,  that  the  act  of  1814  was  un- 
constitutional as  an  act  of  judicial  legislation. 


"  If  it  was,  as  we  allege,  an  act  of  judicial 
legislation,  I  do  not  understand  our  adversaries 
to  claim  that  it  could  be  upheld  as  constitutional. 
Whatever  doubts  prevailed  on  that  subject  in 
1814,  the  question  has  since  bee|>  finally  settled 
both  in  the  State  and  the  Federal  courts.  Is 
there  any  room  for  controversy  as  to  the  fact 
that  it  was  an  act  of  judicial  legislation?  It 
purported  upon  its  face  to  be  not  a  confirmation 
of  pre-existing  rights,  but  an  act  to  remove  doubts 
as  to  what  those  rights  were,  as  you  will  perceive 
by  reference  to  the  recital  in  the  law  itself. 
»#«*** 

"/n  every  aspect,  then,  the  law  of  1814  was  un- 
constitutional, as  impairing  the  obligation  of 
lontracts,  as  divesting  vested  rights,  as  an  act 
of  confiscation  and  disfranchisement,  as  an  act 
of  judicial  legislation." 

Now  then,  what  are  these  two  bills  before  the 
Senate?  They  are  both  of  them  propositions  to 
adjust  and  settle  the  rights  of  contending  parties 
under  this  act  of  incorporation.  Mr.  Porter 
contends  in  his  argument  as  we  have  seen,  that 
the  act  of  1814  was  unconstitutional,  because  it 
disfranchised  corporators  who  were  beneficiaries 
of  the  trust,  and  as  such  were  lawful  voters  at 
the  elections  for  Vestrymen  of  Trinity. 

Now,  I  ask  the  Senator  from  the  6th  (Mr. 
Brooks),  what  becomes  of  his  bill  under  that  ar- 
gument? Does  he  not  also  disfranchise  "  the 
inhabitants  of  New  York,  in  connection  with  the 
Episcopal  church?"  How  will  these  inhabi- 
tants enjoy  their  right  to  vote,  which  Mr.  Porter 
claims  they  have,  in  the  election  of  wardens  and 
vestrymen,  under  his  (Mr.  Brooks')  bill,  any 
more  than  they  have  under  the  act  of  1814? — 
They  will  have  no  more  right  at  all.  His  bill 
excludes  them  from  voting  at  the  elections  for 
wardens  and  vestrymen  of  Trinity,  provided  to 
be  held  by  the  charter,  as  much  as  the  act  of  1814 
itself. 

In  1847  you  asserted  and  now  assert  the  right 
of  each  and  every  adult  Episcopalian  in  the  city 
of  New  York,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church,  to  attend  the  elections  held 
under  the  charter  of  Trinity,  and  to  vote  for  the 
wardens  and  vestrymen  of  that  congregation  - 
You  have  argued  that  inasmuch  as  the  act  of 
1814  denied  them  that  right,  it  is  therefore  un- 
constitutional, "  It  divested  them,"  as  Mr. 
Porter  says,  "  of  their  franchises,  by  a  mere  act 
of  legislative  will,  without  their  consent,  and 
without  cause."  I  ask  the  Senator  from  the  6th, 
and  all  who  contemplate  voting  for  his  bill, 
whether  there  is  any  evidence  before  them,  or 
before  this  Senate,  that  these  corporators  have 
now  relinquished  that  right,  or  are  willing  to 
relinquish  it  to  the  churches  to  which  they  be- 
I'elong'  The  act  of  1814  confined  the  right  of 
snfTrage  to  the  congregation  of  Trinity  church 
and  its  chapels.  This  bill  excludes  the  mem- 
bers of  other  congregations,  wholly,  from  any 
voice  in  the  election  of  half  the  vestry,  and 
jives  to  the  other  churches  an  indirect  and  limit- 
ed voice  in  the  election  of  the  other  half.  Both 
are  equally  acts  of  disfranchisement — both  ex- 


62 


ciude  from  the  elections  held  under  the  charter, 
those  persons  who  now  claim  the  ri»ht  to  vote. 
The  measure  my  colleague  has  introilucei,  pro- 
vides that  each  one  of  these  churches  shall  elect 
a  delegate  to  a;*onvention,  or  con2;re3s,  and  that 
congress  shall  choose  a  warden  and  ten  vestry- 
naen  for  Trinity  church.  Those  who  it  is  con- 
tended are  corporators  of  Trinity,  are  thus  de- 
barred from  taking  any  part  in  the  elections  in 
that  corporation;  they  are  permitted  in  their 
own  respective  churches  to  vote  for  a  vestry, 
which  vestry  elects  a  delegate  to  a  sort  of  con- 
gress, and  chooses  this  congress  one  half  of  the 
vestry  of  Trinity  church. 

Now,  what  is  to  prevent  anyone,  or  any  num- 
ber of  these  persons — these  disfranchised  saints 
who  were  so  persecuted  by  the  act  of  1814 — from 
coming  here,  and  taking  exactly  the  same  ground 
with  reference  to  your  bill,  as  they  now  take 
with  regard  to  the  act  of  1814,  to  wit:  that  the 
act  was  passed  without  their  consent,  and  that 
they,  as  corporators,  are  divested  thereby  of 
^heir  franchises  as  conferred  by  the  charter  ? 

Now,  sir,  this  view  of  the  case,  in  my  judg- 
ment, is  entirely  fatal  to  the  scheme  of  church 
government  proposed  by  the  honorable  Senator 
from  the  6th,  unless  he  or  his  friends  can  pro- 
duce at  their  leisure,  some  answer  to  this  argu- 
ment which  does  not  seem  to  occur  to  them  now, 
as  I  am  not  favored  with  it. 

I  have  shown  that  Mr.  Porter's  argument  is 
fatal  to  the  proposition  of  the  Senator  from  the 
6th,  and  I  will  now  show  that  it  is  equally  fatal 
to  the  proposition  of  the  Select  Committee.  In 
order  to  make  this  the  more  apparent,  let  us  re- 
fer to  the  question  and  see  precisely  what  it  is. 
Here  is  a  controversy  between  parties  in  New- 
York  claimins  conflicting  rights  under  a  charter. 
One  side  insists  that  under  that  charter,  fairly 
construed  according  to  law,  they  have  a  right  to 
take  part  in  the  control  of  the  affairs  of  a  religious 
corporation.  The  other  party  claims  that  this 
allegeil  right  does  not  exist.  Now  that  is  the 
question  slated  in  an  abstract  form.  That  was 
exactly  the  question  in  1814,  and  Mr.  Porter's 
argument  proves  clearly,  as  far  as  the  abstract 
proposition  goes,  that  the  legislature  had  no  right 
to  decide  a  controverted  question  of  private  right 
between  the  parties ;  that  the  act  was  an  act 
of  judicial  legislation,  and  was  therefore  uncon- 
stitutional and  void.  The  only  fallacy  in  his  ar- 
gument, so  far  as  it  respects  the  law  of  1814, 
and  it  is  a  fatal  one — is  this:  he  neglects  to  state 
that  the  act  of  1814  was  founded  on  the  memorial 
of  the  corporation  itself,  and,  when  passed,  was 
accepted  by  it,  and  thtreupon  brcame  a  contract 
between  the  state  and  the  corporation,  and  binding 
on  both. 

That  is  the  fallacy  of  his  argument  as  far  as 
the  act  of  1814  is  concerned;  but  it  is  no  fallacy 
as  regards  these  two  propositions  now  before  the 
Senate,  because  they  are  not  asked  for  by  either 
of  the  parties — neither  the  corporation,  nor  the 
persons  who  claim  to  have  been  disfranchised. 
There  is  no  proof  before  us  that  the  corporation 
of  Trinity,  or  those  who  claim  the  right  to  be 


corporators,  have  applied  by  memorial,  or  other- 
wise, for  the  passage  of  either  of  these  bills,  or 
that  either  of  them  will  be  accepted  or  acquiesced 
in  by  either  party  to  the  controversy.  So,  then, 
Mr.  Porter's  argument  so  far  as  relates  to  these 
propositions,  holds  good, — indeed  it  is  entirely 
conclusive — although  it  is  unsound  when  applied 
to  the  act  of  1814. 

You  are  then  called  upon.  Senators,  to  settle  a 
law  suit,  or  what  ought  to  be  a  law  suit,  between 
these  parties.  You  are  called  upon  to  usurp  the 
functions  of  the  judiciary,  and  to  decide  between 
private  persons,  a  litigated  issue  about  private 
rights.  You  are  called  upon  to  repeat  an  act  of 
legislation  for  parties  whose  distinguished  coun- 
sel (Mr.  Porter),  tells  you  "  no  American  states- 
man, lawyer  or  jurist,  in  view  of  the  facts" — 
namely,  that  this  was  in  1814,  and  has  been  ever 
since,  a  question  of  controverted  private  right 
between  two  parties,  arising  under  a  charter 
which  is  in  the  nature  of  a  contract  and  a  trust, 
— "  could  entertain  a  doubt  was  unconstitutional 
as  an  act  of  judicial  legislation." 

It  is  possible  that  if  those  who  now  act  as  cor- 
porators, and  those  who  claim  the  right  to  he 
corporators,  bad  united  in  a  request  to  the  legis- 
lature, properly  authenticated,  tor  the  passage  of 
a  law  settling  and  defining,  and  confirming  their 
several  rights,  and  had  waived  our  want  of  ju- 
risdiction, that  then  we  should  have  acquired  the 
authority,  as  between  us  and  them,  to  pass  a  law 
upon  the  subject.  But  is  this  the  case?  No 
sir;  the  reverse  of  this.  Remonstrances  are  be- 
fore us.  Yes,  remonstiances  by  the  hundred,  not 
only  from  the  corporation  of  Trinity,  but  from 
the  whole  Episcopal  body  of  the  state,  including 
large  numbers  of  the  very  persons,  mem- 
bers of  the  other  city  churches,  whom  it  is  pro- 
posed to  enfraiichise— deny  the  competency  of  our 
jurisdiction  ;  they  deny  our  right  to  impair  the 
contract  entered  into  in  18 14;  a  contract  which 
up  to  1857  has  been  acquiesced  in  by  all  the  par- 
ties interested,  and  which  has  never  been  assailed 
or  questioned  in  court  or  out  of  court,  in  any 
legal  manner. 

You  have  yourselves,  in  the  new  legislation 
you  propose,  recognized  the  validity  of  the  act 
of  1814.  The  bill  reported  from  the  special 
committee  is  entitled  an  act  to  amend  the  act  of 
IS  14.  The  whole  conception  of  the  bill  is  in 
conflict  with  the  argument  upon  which  you  pro- 
pose to  justify  and  sustain  it.  You  recognize 
throughout  the  bill  the  validity  o(  the  act  of  1814, 
while  your  whole  argument  is  based  on  its  un- 
constitutionality. You  go  on  and  say,  "section 
2d  of  saiil  act  is  hereby  amended  so  as  to  read  as 
follows: 

'•^  2.  Every  male  inhabitant  of  the  city  of  New 
York,  of  full  age,  in  communion  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  church,  in  the  state  of  New  York, 
who  shall  hold  occupy  or  enjoy  a  pew  or  seat  in 
any  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  said  city,  in 
union  with  the  convention  ofthediocese  of  New 
York,  or  shall  have  partaken  of  the  holy  com- 
munion therein,  within  the  year  next  preceding 
any  election  for  church  wardens  and  vestrymen, 


63 


to  be  certified  by  the  rector,  senior  warden,  or 
clerk  of  the  vestry  of  such  church,  shall  be  enti- 
tled to  vote,  at  all  elections  for  church  wardens 
and  vestrymen  of  this  corporation." 

Now  Sir,  what  does  this  section  do?  It  pro- 
poses to  decide  a  disputed  question  about  private 
rights  between  two  parties,  which  has  arisen  up- 
on the  charter  of  a  church  corporation,  and  the 
acts  founded  thereon.  Is  it  more  or  less  than 
this?  If  it  seeks  not  that,  it  seeks  nothing.  If 
it  does  not  accomplish  that  end,  then  the  time 
spent  upon  it  is  wasted.  And  yet  we  have  it 
on  the  authority  of  your  own  advocate,  that  you 
have  no  right  or  power  to  do  any  such  thing. 
And  Mr.  Portei's  view  of  the  law,  as  might  be 
expected  of  any  view  of  the  law  emanciating  from 
hinn,  can  be  abundantly  sustained  by  reference 
to  leading  cases  on  the  subject,  to  some  of  which 
I  propose  in  a  few  minutes  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  Senate. 

I  ought  not,  however,  to  pass  over  without 
comment,  what  Mr.  Porter  has  to  say  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  act  of  1814  was  passed. 

He  says:  "  Beyond  all  doubt,  the  Legislature 
would  in  this  instance,  if  they  had  been  frankly 
informed  by  Trinity  of  the  facts  as  they  actually 
existed,  have  confirmed  the  rights  secured  to  the 
corporators  at  large  by  the  original  charter,  and 
re-affirmed  by  the  act  of  1784.  But  Trinity  stated 
only  what  suited  the  purposes  she  had  in  view. 
She  referred  to  the  antecedent  grants,  but  in  suoh 
terms  as  could  not  fail  to  mislead,  and  to  divert 
the  Legislature,  the  Attorney-General  and  the 
Council  of  Revision  from  the  true  character  of 
the  questions  at  issue." 

Senators  will  remember  the  extract  I  read  the 
other  day  from  the  memorial  of  Trinity  church, 
asking  for  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814.  Could 
anything  be  more  frank  and  explicit  than  that 
statement  of  facts?  The  memorial  set  forth  that 
doubts  had  arisen  as  to  who  were  and  who  were 
not  corporators  of  Trinity  corporation ;  that  two 
or  three  persons,  although  not  residents  of  the 
parish  or  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity 
or  either  of  its  chapels,  had  asserted  a  right  to 
vote  at  the  elections;  that  up  to  that  time,  no 
such  right  had  ever  before  been  asserted;  that 
it  seemed  proper  that  the  attention  of  the  legisla- 
ture should  be  called  to  the  fact,  because  it  was 
likely  to  lead  to  difficulties  in  the  parish,  and 
therefore  the  church  asked  the  Legislature  in 
their  wisdom  to  pass  such  a  law  as  they  should 
deem  proper  under  the  circumstances.  It  is 
hardly  fair  then,  to  say  that  the  case  to  be  pre- 
sented to  the  legislature  was  not  disclosed;  and 
I  must  be  allowed  to  observe  that  it  seems 
to  me  a  very  strange  charge,  to  say  that  anybody 
could  have  "diverted  the  attention  of  the  legis- 
lature, the  attorney-general  and  the  council  of 
revision  of  1814,  from  the  true  character  of  the 
questions  at  issue." 

Why,  Sir,  on  what  did  those  issues  rest?  Up- 
on the  charter  of  1697,  upon  the  grant  of  Queen 
Anne  and  the  acts  of  17S4  and  1788,  accessible 
to  every  one,  and  to  which  any  person  could  have 
referred.    I  say  it  seems  strange,  when  we 


look  over  the  list  of  those  who  held  seats  in  the 
Legislature  and  in  the  Council  of  Revision  of 
that  year,  to  talk  abou  t  concealing  from  them 
such  palpable  facts  spread  out  Ojx  the  record  be- 
fore them,  or  of  diverting  their  minds  from  the 
true  character  of  an  important  issue.  The  men 
who  then  occupied  our  seats  in  these  halls,  have 
since  become  distinguished  in  the  public  trans- 
actions of  the  state  and  the  nation.  The  Coun- 
cil of  Revision  was  imposed  upon  also,  where 
sat  a  Kent  and  a  Lansing!  The  memorial 
beguiled  the  Attorney  General  too! — Abra- 
ham Van  Vechten — one  of  the  most  eminent 
lawyers  of  his  times.  The  government  of  New 
York  in  that  day — the  Legislature,  the  Council 
of  Revision,  were  then  in  the  hands  of  a  race  of 
giants — Tompkins,  Van  Buren,  Root,  Van  Vech- 
ten, Kent  and  Lansing,  and  men  of  equal  in- 
tellectual stature — whom  you  must  not  compare 
with  the  dwarfs  who  now-a-days,  unhappily  lor 
the  state,  are  their  successors.  Such  men  were 
not  easy  to  "  mislead  "  or  to  "  divert  "  from  the 
merits  of  an  important  public  question,  upon 
which  they  were  called  upon  to  *ct.  If  I  were 
required  to  look  over  the  annals  of  the  state,  and 
select  one  Legislature  upon  whose  acts,  more 
than  upon  any  other,  I  could  repose  with  satis- 
faction and  confidence,  I  should  choose  the  Legis- 
lature and  government  of  1814. 

Now,  let  us  pass  from  this  mere  legal  view  of 
the  bill,  introduced  by  the  Senator  from  the  6th 
(Mr.  Brooks),  and  look  for  a  few  moments  at  its 
practical  operation.  Let  us  suppose  it  passed, 
and  that  we  are  witnessing  the  performances 
under  it.  In  the  first  place,  we  have  the 
election  of  fifty-four  vestries  in  as  many 
Episcopal  churches  in  the  city  of  New 
York.  Now,  it  is  easy  to  see  what  will  be  the 
issue  in  each  of  these  elections.  The  issue  will 
be,  the  control  of  the  estates  of  Trinity  church. 
This  is  the  gauntlet  thrown  down  at  the  sanc- 
tury  of  each  of  the  fifty-four  churches,  and  they 
are  challenged  to  take  it  up.  Well,  these  fifty- 
four  vestries  are  elected,  and  they  are  to  control 
the  management  and  enjoy  the  property  of  Trinity. 

What  next?  What  is  to  be  the  next  canvass; 
for  we  are  to  have  three  under  the  law.  After  the 
fifty-four  vestries  have  been  chosen,  we  have  in 
each  vestry  an  election  for  a  delegate  to  what  I 
have  called,  and  shall  continue  to  call  till  I  am 
furnished  with  a  better  name,  a  convention,  or 
congress  of  churches.  In  the  vestries  the  issue 
will  be  low  church  against  high  church — for 
Trinity  or  against  Trinity — one  party  will  go 
for  dividing  up  the  money  among  all  the  city 
churches,  another  will  prefer  to  leave  it  to  the 
control  of  the  corporation  itself,  and  yet  another 
(but  a  very  small  and  feeble  party  I  lear  it  will 
be)  will  go  for  a  distribution  through  the  State 
generally.  We  then  come  to  the  third  election. 
We  get  the  convention  or  congress  together,  and 
they  are  to  elect  a  warden  and  ten  vestrymen  for 
Trinity  church.  Again  the  issue  will  there  be, 
whether  the  vestrymen  they  elect  shall  agree 
with  the  ten  elected  by  the  congregation  of  Trin- 
ity church,  or  fight  thena  upon  the  appropriation 


64 


of  the  income  and  proceeds  of  her  estates.  So 
the  bill  thus  provides  for  three  heated,  excited, 
angry  elections,  which  will  extend  their  ramifi- 
cations throughout  the  whole  of  the  fifty-four 
churches;  andThese  elections  are  to  take  place 
every  year,  constantly  keeping  alive  dissension 
and  acrimony  among  the  congregations. 

Senators,  does  this  sort  of  legislation  com- 
mend itself  to  your  wisdom?'  If  you  resolve 
yourselves,  as  you  propose  to  do,  into  a  body  fit 
and  competent  to  frame  and  set  in  operation  a 
system  of  church  government,  do  you  think  such 
a  scheme  as  this  will  reconcile  the  people  to 
your  first  experiment?  Do  you  fancy  that  this 
triple  series  of  annual  elections  would  tend  to 
the  edification  of  these  fifty-four  peaceful,  happy 
congregations? 

If  such  is  your  opinion,  then  I  am  bound,  in 
courtesy,  to  presume  that  it  is  because  you 
know  more  about  church  discipline  than  I  do.  I 
am  not  an  expert  in  church  government;  you 
probably  are.  If  this  grotesque  parody  upon  all 
that  I  have  been  accustomed  to  believe  to  be  a 
judicious  form  of  church  government,  is  the 
embodiment  of  your  more  abundant  experience, 
then  I  suppose  it  is  proper  for  one  so  ignorant  as 
I  confess  myself  to  be  about  such  matters,  to 
submit,  without  a  murmur. 

Sir,  I  can  not  but  think  that  my  colleague 
(Mr.  Brooks)  will  very  likely  see  introduced  into 
these  ecclesiastical  elections,  some  of  those  hor- 
rors which  he  has  sometimes  so  graphically  depict- 
ed on  this  floor  as  taking  place  in  our  ordinary 
elections  in  the  city.  I  am  afraid  he  will  have 
to  devise  some  new  registry  law,  to  create  some 
new  boards  of  canvassers  and  inspectors,  and  to 
complete  his  bill  by  adding  to  it  some  carefully 
prepared  machinery  by  which  these  ecclesiastical 
elections  can  carried  on  without  fraud  or  vio- 
lence. We  know  that  human  nature  is  the  same 
everywhere;  and  I  don't  care  whether  an  elec- 
tion be  held  for  a  Senator  or  a  vestryman,  if 
exciting  issues  spring  up  and  angry  controver- 
sies exist,  the  effect  will  be  the  same.  The 
causes  which  produce  excitement  and  disorder 
and  deceit  in  a  political  election,  to  wit  :  the  ea- 
ger purpose  to  triumph,  the  desire  to  crush  an 
opponent,  the  hope  of  gain,  the  love  of  power, 
the  gratification  of  ambition,  will,  if  they  exist 
as  they  may  exist  in  a  church  election,  produce 
the  same  result. 

When  elections  in  churches  are  confined  to 
their  own  local  matters,  as  in  these  city 
churches  they  have  heretofore  been,  it  is  easy 
to  get  along  peaceably,  calmly,  and  with 
decorum. 

The  elections  in  Trinity  church  are  so  con- 
ducted now,  because  none  take  part  in  them 
but  those  whose  interests  are  indentified  with  the 
congregation  which  the  vestry  is  to  represent. 

The  vestry  possess  the  entire  confidence  of 
their  constituency;  and  well  they  may;  for  more 
able,  high-toned  and  accomplished  gentlemen, 
never  held  a  trust,  private  or  public,  in  the  city 
of  New  York.  So  unreserved  is  the  confidence 
felt  by  the  corporators  in  the  conduct  of  those  to 


whom  they  have  entrusted  the  affairs  of  the  cor- 
poration, that,  as  we  have  seen  from  the  record,  J 
it  is  quite  unusual  for  a  large  vote  to  be  polled.  j. 
It  is  seldom  that  half  of  those  entitled  to  vote,  j, 
attend  the  elections.    But  the  moment  you  un-  g 
dertake  by  a  complex  and  extensive  scheme  of  t 
popular  elections,  to  settle  the  controversy  be-  j 
tween  those  who  have  the  control  of  Trinity,  ; 
and  those  who  wish  to  get  the  control,  you  throw  , 
into  the  whole  Episcopalian  community  an  ele-  j 
ment  of  discord,  that  if  it  does  not  bring  disgrace  j 
upon  a  religious  body  now  conspicuous  for  the  j 
gravity,  dignity,  and  decorum  which  characteri- 
ze its  conduct,  will  certainly  tend  to  endanger 
its  successful  devotion  to  some  of  the  objects  for  ,( 
which  a  congregation  is  formed — the  promotion 
of  "peace  and  good  will  among  men."    You  ,| 
array  churches  that  should  be  the  sisters  of  ), 
Trinity, against  her.  The  friends  of  Trinity  in  the  j 
other  churches, will  be  eager  that  Trinity  shall  be  i  ;„ 
sustained  in  the  elections.    A  majority  of  some  j  ^ 
congregations  will  be  for  Trinity,  and  a  majority 
of  others  will  be  hostile  to  her.    Thus  you  will  i 
array  church  against  church,  congregation  against  j  .; 
congregation.    St.  George  will  be  against  the 
Holy  Innocents;  St.  Matthew's  will  be  against  I  j 
St.  John's;  Grace  against  St  Paul;  St.  Bartholo-  I 
mew  against  St.  Clement;  St.  Luke  against  all  j  ^ 
Saints;  St.  Peter  against  the  Church  of  the  In-  j 
tercession;   St.  John  the  Baptist  against  the  ^| 
Epiphany;  St.  Mary  against  the  Annunciation/  j 
and  the  Holy  Evangelists,  perhaps,  against  them  , 

Well,  Sir,  here  we  have   fifty-four  angry 
ecclesiastical  elections  going  on  in   one  day 
in  New  York;  an  exciting  issue,  a  heated  con- 
troversy,  a  bitter  conflict.    It  is  not  too  much  to  "t, 
fancy  that  we  see  the  omnibusses  rattling  through  ' 
the  streets,  crowded  with  eager  voters,  and  vocal 
with  strange  election  cries  :   "  Three  cheers  for  I  I 
Grace  church!  " — "  Hurry  up  more  votes  to  As-  , 
cension!"      Trinity  is  ahead !  "    "Hoi  for  the 
Evangelists!"    See  the  inflammatory  handbills 
"Up  with  Trinity!  "—"Down  with  St.  Georgel"  i 
Ah!  it  will  be  no  longer  the  St.  George  we  have  ' 
been  accustomed  to  regard;  but  St.  George  and 
the  Dragon — eager  to  enter  the  field  of  strife 
burning  for  the  foray!    But  let  us  hasten  to  the  Jj' 
churches.    Hear  the  crowd  around  the  doors,  the 
police  vainly  endeavoring  to  preserve  order,  give  ^ 
three  cheers  for  the  Low  church,  three  groans 
for  the  High  church,  and  a  tiger  for  the  Bishop. 
Now  approach  the  door,  and  see  the  eager  ticket-  ^ 
pedlars  pay  their  respects  to  each  new  comer: — 
"Are  you  against  Trinity?" — "  Can't  you  give 
us  a  vote  for  Grace  church?  "    Mark  how  they 
follow  that  opposition  voter  along  the  aisle;  how 
closely  they  watch  him  to  see  that  he  is  a  duly 
qualified  voter;  how  spitefully  they  challenge  . 
and  wrangle  with  him  about  his  vote.    Sir,  pass 
this  bill,  and  after  you  have  seen  a  few  elections  ; 
under  it,  this  will  be  no  fancy  sketch. 

And  what  a  time  have  you  chosen  for  these 
extraordinary  iproceedings  in  the  church?    The  ,| 
season  ol  Lent. 

Mr.  BiiooKS :  We  choose  the  season  of  Easter,   i  ' 


65 


Mr.  Sickles:  Oh!  you  had  better  say  Good 
Friday — the  day  of  the  crucifixion!  But  Lent  is 
to  be  the  time;  a  season  vvhen  the  church  should 
be  all  calmness,  and  at  peace  with  herself;  when 
every  passion  should  be  allayed  and  every  ex- 
citement put  to  rest;  a  season  ot  fasting  and 
prayer.  I  shall  advise  the  honorable  senator  from 
the  Gth,  if  he  passes  his  bill,  to  change  the  time 
of  the  elections,  and  to  hold  them  after  Lent.  We 
can  then  have  a  carnival  in  New  York;  for  these 
elections  would  rival  the  scenes  of  the  carnival 
at  Rome. 

But  let  us  pass  from  this  spectacle.  I  now 
desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  some 
of  the  allegations  and  arituments  employed  by 
the  Senator  from  the  22d  (iMr.  Noxon).  In  his 
speech  delivered  March  28th,  he  says  that  there 
has  been  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  vestry  of 
Trinity  church,  "  to  break  down  the  committee 
in  order  to  overrule  and  override  the  Senate  of 
the  state  of  New  York."  He  charges  the  ves- 
try with  a  corrupt  use  of  their  power  lo  grant 
leases — with  having  used  that  povver  to  favor 
relatives  and  friends.    Here  are  his  words: 

"  But  the  charge  is  that  others  hold  on  to,  and 
administer  the  funds;  and  why  is  it  that  they  so 
pertinaciously  hold  on  to  the  church  property 
and  lease  it  out  from  year  to  year?  Probably 
on  account  of  some  considerations  not  yet 
brought  before  the  Senate.  I  surmise  that  in 
those  same  leases  there  is  something  that  does 
not  meet  the  eye.  I  fancy  it  m\y  be  found  that 
some  friend  stands  behind,  in  the  background; 
some  son,  or  father,  or  brother  occupying  this 
property  and  making  a  profitable  thing  out  of 
these  leases,  I  ask,  what  is  it  that  should  induce 
them  to  hold  on  to  this  property,  unless  some- 
thing that  the  public  can  not  seel" 

Again  he  says: 

"I  do  not  deny  that  Trinity  does  much  both 
for  the  city  and  country;  but  while  I  admit  she 
does  much,  I  do  complain  that  she  does  not  half 
enough.  While  she  is  enriching  herself  by  hold- 
ing on  to  her  property,  she  does  not  give  away 
half  enough." 

And  he  exclaims  with  a  greet  deal  of  empha- 
sis, "  Trinity  never  had  any  right  to  the  pro- 
perty she  now  holds." 

Now,  Sir,  I  can  not  allow  charges  of  this 
grave  character,  to  be  made  here  in  this  debate, 
against  gentlemen  who  stand  so  high  in  the 
community,  which  I  have  the  honor,  in  part,  to 
represent;  who  have  gone  through  life  with  re- 
putations cherished  and  unchallenged  up  to  the 
hour  when  they  were  thus  rudely  impugned; 
and  I  call  on  the  Senator  from  the  22d  (Mr.  Nox- 
on), as  a  manly  and  generous  gentleman,  either 
to  make  good  his  accusations,  or  to  withdraw 
them  before  another  sun  goes  down !  This  much 
is  due  to  these  estimable  citizens — it  is  due  to 
himself — it  is  due  to  this  Senate.  I  am  certain 
these  accusations  ran  not  be  maintained.  Kvery 
one  who  knows  these  gentlemen,  must  know 
this;  and  I  am  sure  these  imputations  must 
have  been  uttered  in  the  excitement  and  ardor  of 
debate,  and  not  after  such  deliberation  as  charges 


so  grave  ought  to  have  received.  A  corrupt 
use  of  the  power  to  grant  leases,  to  favor  rela- 
tives and  friends !  Sir,  a  more  serious  accusa- 
tion could  not  be  broughc  against  any  one  hold- 
ing a  trust.  Where  is  the  evidence  on  which 
the  accusation  is  made?  Dues  it  not  look  like 
an  effort  to  traduce  the  corporation,  to  assail  it 
by  all  sorts  of  accusations,  and  under  the  noise 
and  smoke  of  the  attack,  to  justify  the  act  of 
usurpation  and  spoliation  you  are  about  to  com- 
mit. When  I  read  these  remarks  of  the  Honor- 
able Senator  (Mr.  Noxon),  I  could  not  help 
contrasting  them  with  the  report  of  the  gentle- 
man and  his  associates,  upon  the  select  commit- 
tee, where  I  find  the?e  words: 

"  It  will  be  seen  that  there  is  no  question 
raised  in  regard  to  the  persou  il  inlearity.  AND 
NO  IMPE.VCHMENT  OF  THE  PURITY  OF  PER- 
SONAL MOTIVES  of  any  member  ol  that  cor- 
poration." 

Immediately  after  the  Senator  from  the  22d 
(Mr.  Noxon),  had  signed  his  name  to  that  eulo- 
gium,  he  rises  in  his  place  in  the  Senate,  and 
charges  these  very  men  with  a  corrupt  use  of 
their  power,  as  custodians  of  this  property,  for 
the  benefit  of  relatives  and  the  gratification  of 
favorites.  Sir,  that  is  impeaching  the  purity  of 
their  motives;  that  is  questioning  their  personal 
integrity.  We  have  a  right  to  enquire  of  the 
Senator  why  he  did  not  spread  out  on  the  record 
here  before  us,  the  evidence  of  the  corrupt  use  of 
this  power,  which  he  charges  upon  the  vestry; 
we  have  a  right  to  know  why  it  was  not  investi- 
gated by  his  select  committee  when  they  visited 
New  York?  They  investigated  pretty  much 
everything.  They  have  collected  here  in  this 
volume,  every  rumor,  or  suggestion,  or  whisper 
that  has  found  utterance  against  the  church  for 
years  past.  Yet  there  is  not  one  particle  of  evi- 
dence to  sustain  this  most  serious  charge — not 
one  single  fact  throughout  the  entire  testimony 
to  justify  it.  Now,  Sir,  I  am  authorized  by  a 
number  of  the  gentlemen  belonging  to  the  vest- 
ry, to  proclaim  here  in  the  Senate,  for  them- 
selves and  their  associates  in  the  most  formal 
manner,  in  reference  to  this  and  the  other  as- 
persions to  which  I  have  alluded,  that  they 
wholly  deny  and  indignantly  repel  these  charges, 
each  and  all  of  them — as  not  only  untrue, 
but  without  the  slightest  shadow  of  truth;  and 
on  ttieir  behalf,  I  will  now  read  to  the  Senate 
the  following  statement: 

"  We  wholly  deny  and  repel  these  charges  or 
insinuations  as  not  only  untrue  but  without  any 
color  of  truth,  as  to  any  member  of  our  body, 
and  as  unjust  and  injurious  alike  to  our  colleagues 
and  ourselves.  We  have  been  members  of  the 
vestry  for  several  years,  and  have  had  full  oppor- 
tunity to  become  acquainted  with  the  manage- 
ment of  its  property  and  affairs.  We  now  dis- 
tinctly assert  of  our  own  knowledge  that  they 
have  been  administered  not  only  without  any 
corrupt  motive  or  regard  to  the  pecuniary  ad- 
vantage or  personal  interest  ol  aiiyof  its  members, 
or  of  their  friends  or  connc^cions,  but  with  con- 
stant and  scrupulous  care  to  do  no  act  what- 


9 


66 


ever  that  would  in  any  way  bear  that  construc- 
tion. 

"We  have  no  object  in  defending  the  rights  of 
Trinity  church,  now  menaced,  as  we  think, 
with  unlawful  aggression,  but  lo  do  our  duty  as 
g:ood  citizens  and  guardians  of  an  important  re- 
ligious trust." 

Sir,  I  am  authorized  to  make  this  state- 
ment on  behalf  of  the  gentlemen  belonging  to 
Trinity  Vestry,  and  in  the  name  of  my  city  and 
my  constituents,  as  a  Senator,  I  here  endorse 
every  word  and  line  of  it  as  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth;  and  now  I  call  up- 
on the  Senator  from  the  22d,  (Mr.  Noxon,)  either 
to  make  good  his  accusations,  in  the  face  of  this 
challenge — or  to  do  what  I  can  not  doubt  that  his 
impulses  as  a  gentleman  and  his  duty  as  a  Sena- 
tor will  impel  him  to  do; — abandon  them  ! 

The  Senator  from  the  22d,  also  charges  Trinity 
with  being  niggardly  in  her  donations  for  the 
aid  of  other  churches.    He  says  she  has  not  giv- 
en away  half  enough.    Why,  sir,  can  he  have 
forgotten  the  testimony  of  Gen.   Dix  ?    I  ask 
all  who  heard  the  statement  of  the  Senator,  to 
read  the  testimony  given  before  the  committee 
by  Gen.  Dix,  and  then  to  judge  for  themselves. 
Why,  they  will  find  spread  out  all  over  the  re- 
cord here,  so  plainly  that  it  can  not  be  evaded  or 
questionsd,  the  fact  that  Trinity  has  not  only 
given  away  all  her  income  not  actually  employed, 
but  has  added,  largely  to  her  debt,  in  her  bounti- 
ful gifts  to  other  churches.  That  debt  now  reaches 
six  hundred    thousand  dollars,    and  has  been 
steadily  increased  by  the  corporation,  to  enable 
them  to  meet  the  more  pressing  wants  of  the 
congregations  of  other  churches.    At  the  same 
time,  the  Vestry  rescue  themselves  from  the  im- 
putation of  bad  financial  management,  because 
they  call  attention  to  the  tact  that  within  a  very 
few  years  a  vast  number  of  leases  will  fall  in, 
when  the  income  of  the  church  will  be  largely 
increased,  and  when  by  that  means,  or  by  the 
sale  of  a  portion  of  her  property  she  can  release 
herself  from  the  embarrassment  which  has  tem- 
porarily resulted  from  the  liberality  of  her  dona- 
tions.   Let  me  observe  here,  that  the  notion 
that  seems  to  prevail  in  many  quarters,  that  the 
Vestry  of  Trinity,  hold  the  income  of  that  cor- 
poration as  a  trust  for  the  benefit  of  all  other 
Episcopalian  churches  in  the   state,  has  arisen 
Irom  the  uniform  and  munificent  liberality  with 
which  she  has  supplied,  out  of  the  abundance  of 
her  means,  the  wants  of  other  churches  ;  because 
nothing  can  certainly  be  found  in  the  grant  of 
Queen  Anne,  or  in  the  original  charter,  to  give 
color  to  the  pretence  that  Trinity  holds  her  es- 
tates in  trust  for  any  church  but  her  own. — 
Any  one  who  had  never  read  the  charter  and  the 
graut  from  Queen  Anne,  might  we'l  suppose  from 
the  liberality  of  her  gifts,  that  Trinity  was  under 
some  obligation  lo  make  these  appropriations. 
But  when  they  do  read  them,  they  find  that  it  is 
out  of  good  will,  from  a  sense  of  religious  duty, 
and  to  advance  the  holy  cause  in  which  she  is 
engaged,  that  she  thus  applies  her  means,  and 
not  from  any  legal  obligation  to  do  so. 


I  desire,  Sir,  to  read  one  or  two  extracts  from 
the  testimony  of  Gen.  Dix,  to  show  what  haa 
been  the  financial  and  the  ecclesiastical  policy  of 
the  church,  and  what  she  proposes  to  do  in  the 
future;  and  then  I  desire  that  Senators,  if  they 
intend  to  erect  themselves  into  an  ecclesiastical 
council  to  direct  the  government  and  dispose  of 
the  funds  of  Trinity  church,  should  contrast 
the  exposition  given  by  that  distinguished  gen- 
tleman of  the  past,  present,  and  future  policy 
of  the  Vestry,  with  what  they  may  fairly  pre- 
sume would  be  the  policy  pursued  after  the  fifty- 
four  city  churches  get  control  of  the  funds  of 
the  corporation. 

Gen.  Dix  says: 

"  Soon  after  my  connection  with  the  vestry 
commenced,  my  attention  was  attracted  to  the 
financial  condition  of  the  corporation,  which 
seemed  to  me  very  unsatisfactory.  Its  debt 
amounted  to  nearly  half  a  million  of  dollars,  and 
by  reason  of  the  large  donations  it  was  in  the 
habit  of  making  to  other  churches  its  revenue 
had  become  inadequate  to  its  expenditures,  and 
the  annual  deficits  were  made  up  by  a  sale  of 
property.  I  regarded  this  practice,  though 
founded  upon  a  generous  consideration  for  the 
wants  of  other  parishes,  and  a  desire  to  promote 
the  advancement  of  the  interests  of  the  Episco- 
pal church  in  the  city  and  the  state,  as  opposed 
to  all  sound  principles  of  finance.  No  fund  or 
endowment  can  long  withstand  a  regular  con- 
sumption of  its  principal.  Encumbered  as  the 
church  property  was  by  leases,  it  could  rarely  be 
sold  in  any  considerable  parcels,  without  serious 
sacrifice  ;  an. I  it  was  my  opinion  that  the  con- 
tributions of  the  church,  instead  of  being  enlarged 
should  be  curtaile<l,  that  its  debt  should  not  be 
increased,  that  its  expenditures  shouk',  if  possi- 
ble, be  brought  within  its  income,  and  that  its 
property  should,  as  a  general  rule,  be  preserved 
until  the  expiration  of  its  leases,  when  it  could 
be  sold  without  loss;  thus  leaving  the  church  in 
a  condition  to  carry  out  with  vigor  and  success 
the  great  plan  of  ministration,  which  seemed  to 
me  to  be  clearly  marked  out  by  changes  and  pro- 
gress in  the  distribution  of  business  and  popula- 
tion throughout  the  city." 

So  much.  Sir,  as  to  the  condition  in  which 
Gen.  Dix  found  the  finances  of  the  corporation 
when  he  entered  the  Vestry;  when,  by  reason  of 
these  liberal  appropriations — complained  ot  here 
as  not  being  half  enough — she  had  consumed  all 
she  had  to  give  out  of  her  income,  and  had  in- 
creased her  debt;  until  the  condition  of  her  finan- 
ces became  almost  alarming. 

He  proceeds  to  say:  "This  unlocked  for  ex- 
penditure, and  the  continued  annual  contributions 
to  other  parishes,  which  the  vestry  were  unwilling 
to  abridge,  have  carried  the  corporate  debt  up  to 
the  enormous  sum  of  six  hundred  and  sixty-eight 
thousand  dollars;  exceeding,  by  the  sum  of 
$469,000,  its  available  bonds  and  mortgages.'' 

He  then  proceeds  to  duvelope  the  comprehen- 
sive plan  of  miiiistration  by  which  the  corpora- 
tion may  fulfill  its  beneficent  and  pious  mission, 
in  the  city  of  New  York: 


67 


"If  Trinity  church  had  followed  the  same  in- 
stincts, which  have  drawn  off  the  other  relisious 
societies  of  the  city  to  its  more  attractive  dis- 
tricts; it  she  also  had  abandoned  to  their  fate  the 
poor  and  necessitous,  whom  wealth  'nd  fashion 
have  bequeathed  to  her,  ttie  lower  part  of  the 
city  would  have  presented  an  example  of  relig- 
ious destitution  unparalleled  in  the  history  of 
Christian  civilization. 

"  It  was  in  view  of  this  great  channeinthe 
condition  of  this  population  of  the  city  that  I 
introduced  into  the  the  vestry  on  the  10th  April, 
1751,  the  folIowi"g  resolutions-. 

Resolved,  That  the  standing  comnnittee  be  in- 
structed to  report  a  plan  by  which  the  expendi- 
tures of  the  corporation  shall  be  limited  to  its  in- 
come. 

"  Rctolvcd,  That  the  said  comnnittee  be  in- 
structed to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  mak- 
ing the  seats  in  Trinity  church  and  in  St.  John's 
chapels  free. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  said  committee  be  in- 
structed to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  estab- 
lishing free  schools  in  connexion  with  Trinity 
church  and  its  chapels. 

''''Resolved,  That  the  said  committee  be  in- 
structed to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  devot- 
ing the  funds  of  the  corporation,  as  far  as  may  be 
practicable,  after  making  provision  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  new  chapel  in  25th  street,  to  the  ed- 
ucation and  religious  instruction  of  the  poor  of 
the  city. 

"  The  last  resolutions,  as  orig'nally  presented, 
was  confined  to  the  poor  of  the  city  below  canal 
street,  and,  on  the  suggestion  of  a  member  of  the 
Testry,  it  was,  in  view  of  future  contingencies, 
amended  so  as  to  embrace  the  whole  city. 

"  This  is  the  plan  which,  nearly  four  years 
ago,  I  deemed  it  my  duty  to  bring  before  the 
vestry.  It  was  supported  by  a  somewhat  labor- 
ed argument,  which  was  not  committed  to  paper, 
and  which  I  will  not  tax  the  patience  of  the  com- 
mittee by  attempting  to  recall  to  remembrance. 
I  trust,  iniieed,  that  no  such  exposition  is  neces- 
sary, and  that  the  resolutions  sufficiently  explain 
their  purpose.  Their  design  was  to  rescue  the 
lower  part  of  the  city — that  portion  which  has 
not  only  an  immense  boily  of  resident  poor,  but 
which  receives  into  its  bosom  the  greater  part  of 
the  destitute,  who  seek  a  refuge  here  from  hard- 
ships in  other  countries — to  rescue  this  combined 
mass  of  permanent  and  temporary  indigence  from 
the  utter  spiritual  abandonment  with  which  it 
■Was  threatened  by  the  removal  of  those  to  whose 
wealth  and  liberality  it  had  bi^en  accustomed  to 
look  for  sympathy  and  pecuniary  aid,  to  more 
congenial  districts.  The  plan  comprehended  not 
only  the  spiritual  instruction  of  the  adult  inhabi- 
tants of  this  deserted  district — once  the  seat  of 
nearly  all  the  wealth  of  the  city — but  the  educa- 
tion of  their  children;  and,  to  the  extent  of  the 
means  of  the  corporation,  a  ministration  to  their 
temporal  wants.  Trinity  church,  with  its  en- 
dowments, fortunately  growing  more  valuable 
with  the  progress  of  the  city,  was  to  stand  in 
the  place  of  the  individual  opulence,  which  has 


fled  from  a  district  where  its  tas'es  could  no 
longer  find  suitable  fields  for  indulgence,  and  es- 
tablished itself  in  others,  where  it  has  rivaled 
Genoa  in  its  streets  of  palaces,  and  where  in  all 
its  appointments  and  inaaifestations  of  indoor 
and  outdoor  life,  there  is  a  concentration  of  re- 
finement, luxury  and  splendor  unequaled,  ex- 
cepting by  a  few  of  the  great  capitals  of  Europe. 

'"It  is  possible  that  I  may  have  looked  upoa 
this  plan  with  that  undue  partiality  which  indi- 
viduals are  apt  to  feel  for  suggestions  originating 
with  themselves.  But  it  has  seemed  to  me  to 
have  been  among  the  designs  of  Proi'idence  that 
Trinity  Church  should  have  been  planted  in  this 
great  district,  ready,  with  her  ample  endow- 
ments, to  make  provision,  when  the  emer- 
gency should  arrive  for  those  whom  individual 
wealth  has  left  upon  her  hands.  I  hold  this  to 
be  the  great  mission  of  Trinity  church,  and  I 
have  pressed  on  the  vestry,  on  all  proper  occa- 
sions, the  duty  of  preparing  for  it,  and  of  com- 
mencing the  work  with  the  utmost  diligence. 
Though  the  plan  has  not  been  formally  adopted  ■ 
it  has  been  practically  acted  on;  and  it  is  due  to 
my  associates  in  the  vestry  to  say,  that  they  have 
responded  to  all  appeals  in  behalf  of  the  destitute 
districts  below  Canal  street,  by  as  liberal  an  ex- 
penditure as  the  income  of  the  corporation,  crip- 
pled by  a  heavy  debt,  and  burdened  by  large  an- 
nual contributions  to  other  churches,  has  admit- 
ted. The  clerical  force  of  the  parish  has  been 
nearly  doubled;  the  Sunday  schools  have  greatly 
enlarged;  parish  schools  for  the  gratuitous  edu- 
cation of  children  have  been  established;  by  far 
the  greater  part  of  the  pews  in  Trinity  church, 
one  hundred  and  four  out  of  one  hundred  and 
forty-four  in  St.  Paul's,  and  a  large  number  in 
St.  John's,  have  been  made  free;  efTorts  have 
been  put  forth  to  bring  into  the  church  those, 
who  have  not  been  accustomed  to  attend  any  re- 
ligious worship;  Trinity  church  is  opened  twice 
every  day  throughout  the  year,  for  divine 
service;  a  mission  office  has  been  established  to 
receive  applications  for  aid;  lay  visitois  are  em- 
ploye! to  seek  out  want  and  relieve  it;  mission- 
ary agencies  have  been  constituted  in  connection 
with  the  Commissioners  of  Emigration;  the 
whole  lower  part  of  tbe  city  has  been  virtually 
made  a  field  of  missionary  labor;  and  a  degree  of 
energy  has  been  infused  into  the  ministrations 
of  the  church,  temporal  and  spiritual,  which  com- 
p  >nsates,  in  a  great  degree,  for  the  lost  support  of 
the  religious  societies  removed  to  other  districts. 
In  the  midst  of  all  this  earnest  effort,  with  five 
of  her  clergy  residing  within  this  neglected  field 
of  labor,  conversant  with  little  else  than  its  des- 
titution, and  devoting  themselves  to  the  relief  of 
its  wants.  Trinity  church  finds  herself  assailed, 
as  faithless  to  her  trust,  by  those,  for  the  most 
part,  whose  lives  are  passed  amid  the  social 
amenities  of  the  upper  districts,  and  in  an  at- 
mosphere redolent  of  indulgence  and  luxurious 
ease. 

"  It  was  not  supposed  by  me,  when  this  plan 
was  brought  forward,  that  it  could  be  fully  car- 
ried out,  until  a  considerable  portion  of  the  leased 


68 


property  of  the  church  should  become  available 
for  the  purpose.  It  was  only  expected  that  a 
beginning  should  be  made,  and  that  the  plan,  in 
its  great  outlires,  should  have  a  piactical  adop- 
tion. However  earnest  the  desire  to  put  it  in 
operation  at  an  earlier  period,  the  unexpected 
augmentation  of  her  debt,  not  only  renders  such 
a  desire  hopeless,  but  manifests  that  it  may  be 
even  further  postponed,  or  possibly  deleated, 
without  a  prudent  husbandry  of  her  resources. 

"  For  the  better  illustration  of  this  point,  I 
annex  a  statement  of  the  revenue  and  ordinary 
expenditures  of  the  corporation,  for  the  year  end- 
ing the  30th  April,  1856. 

Revenue. 

1 .  From  ground  rents  of  real  estate,  $67,359  53 


2.  "     pew  rents,   6,998  50 

3.  "     interest  on  bonds  and  mort- 

gages  13,259  40 

4.  "     Trinity  Church  Cemetery,  4,155  93 


$91,773  36 

Expenditures. 
1.  Parish  expenditures,  including,  (besides  those 
obviously  such)  charges  upon,  and  expenses  of 
management  and  care  of  the  property  of  the 
church,  necessary  diocesan  expenses,  and  an- 
nuities to  families  of  deceased  clergymen,  or 


to  officers  of  the  parish,   $71,344  22 

2.  Interest  on  debt,   36,552  15 

3.  Allowances,  donations,  and  loans 

to  other  churches,   32,052  42 

$139,948  79 

Deduct  revenue,   91,773  36 

And  there  is  a  deficit  of   $48, 145  43 


for  the  year  ending  30th  April,  1S56. 
"  The  receipts  and  expenditures  for  the  year 
ending  30th,  April,  1S57,  were  estimated  on  1st 
May  last,  at  $40,638  66.  The  grants  actually 
made  by  the  corporaticn,  to  clergymen  and 
churches  to  be  paid  during  the  year,  in  addition 
to  the  regular  allowances,  amount  to  $11,640, 
and  the  appropriations  for  building  school-houses, 
and  renovating  and  enlarging  St.  John's  chapel 


to  $28,000,  making  together   $39,640  00 

Deduct  cash  on  hand  1st  May,  1856,    10,016  38 

$29,623  62 

Add  estimated  deficiency,   40,638  66 

And  there  will  be  a  deficit  of   70,262,28 


for  the  year  ending  the  3Uth  April,  1857. 

"  This  deficit  can  only  be  met  by  selling  real 
estate.  The  deficits  for  the  last  ten  years,  ex- 
ceed two  hundred  and  seventy  thousand  dollars, 
and  the  corporation  has  provided  for  them,  by 
selling  lots,  and  applying  the  proceeds  to  the 
augmentation  of  her  insufficient  income.  While 
she  is  assailed  as  niggardly  in  her  donations,  and 
as  engaged  in  a  systematic  accumulation  of  her 
capital,  she  has  in  fact,  for  years,  been  selling 
her  real  ^state,  and  meeting  with  the  proceeds, 


the  pressing  demands  on  her,  a  large  portion  of 
which  have  grown  out  of  her  contributions  for 
the  support  of  other  churches. 

"The  estimated  expenditure  of  the  present 
year  continued  till  1862,  would  consume  so 
much  of  the  Lispenard  lease,  which  becomes 
disencumbered  in  that  year  and  embrafes  a  large 
and  valuable  part  of  her  real  estate,  as  to  leave 
her  a  balance  insufficient  to  pay  her  debt  which 

is  now   $668,813  00 

This  debt  may  be  reduced  by  mort- 
gages.!   199,469-00 


To  the  sum  of   469,344  00 

Add  deficits  of  $70,578-66  for  five 
years,   351,311-40 


And  there  will  be  the  sum  of          $820,055  40 

to  be  provided  for  by  sales  of  real  estate  ;  a  sum 
exceeding  the  highest  estimate  in  the  report  of 
the  committee  of  the  value  of  the  Lispenard 
lease  ;  and  unless  the  price  of  real  estate  become 
greatly  enhanced  during  the  next  five  years,  no- 
thing will  remain  of  the  lease  referred  to,  after 
discharging  the  pecuniary  obligations  above 
specified,  a  portion  of  which  must  be  provided 
for  by  sale  of  other  property. 

"The  expenditures  of  the  parish  can  not  be 
materially  abridged  without  prejudice  to  its  in- 
terests ;  and  the  vestry  are  unwilling  to  reduce 
the  annual  allowances  to  other  churches,  believ- 
ing that  such  a  reduction  would  cause  great  in- 
convenience to  the  recipients,  and,  in  some 
cases,  impair  to  a  serious  extent  the  efficiency 
of  the  parishes  thus  assisted. 

"  In  regard  to  the  necessity  of  allowing  the 
capital  of  her  endowment  to  be  consumed  by  the 
current  expenses  of  the  church,  I  have  differed  in 
opinion  with  the  majority  of  the  vestry.  While 
they  have  deplored  it  and  yielded  to  it  as  a  ne- 
cessity, I  have  been  in  favor  of  meeting  it  by  re- 
trenchment, and  bringing  down  the  expenditure, 
as  nearly  as  may  be,  to  the  standard  of  the  in- 
come. I  have  urged  this  duty  on  the  vsstry  as 
one  demanded  by  every  maxim  of  financial  pru- 
dence, and  with  the  less  reluctance  as  the  incon- 
venience to  result  from  it  would  be  of  short  du- 
ration; for  if  the  real  estate  disposable  in  1862, 
or  the  great  mass  of  it,  can  be  kept  undiminished 
until  that  time,  the  church  will  be  in  a  position 
to  prosecute  the  great  plan  of  ministration  she 
has  entered  on,  wiih  an  efficiency  which  can  not 
fail  to  produce  results  of  the  highest  importance 
to  the  city  and  the  state.  If  I  have  thought  the 
vestry  in  error  in  this  respect,  it  is  not  because  I 
have  considered  them  lacking  in  liberality,  but 
because  they  have  yielded  under  impulses  highly 
honorable  to  their  feelings,  to  an  outside  pressure 
for  contributions,  which,  in  view  of  the  deep  and 
lasting  interests  involved  in  the  question,  I 
would  have  resisted." 

Now,  Sir,  here  we  see  unfolded  the  purposes 
and  objects  which  the  corporation  have  in  view; 
and  it  is  for  you  to  say  whether  you  find  any- 
thing in  them  to  condemn;  conceding  for  the 
moment,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that 


69 


it  belongs  to  you  a3  a  legislative  body,  to  pass 
an  official  judgment  on  the  conduct  of  the  vestry. 
But  althoush  that  right  is  denied,  as  Trinity  has 
been  arraigned  here,  she  appeals  to  this  record 
for  her  complete  vindication. 

Sir,  if  this  estate  be  taken  from  the  corpora- 
tion and  vestry,  then  will  be  defeated  the  only 
adequate  scheme  ever  projected  to  provide  for  the 
spiritual  and  temporal  care  of  this  large  and  in- 
teresting portion  of  the  population  of  the  city, — 
A  few  years  ago,  those  who  now  form  the  up- 
town Episcopalian  congregations  were  down 
town  people,  and  members  of  the  congregation  of 
Trinity  Church.  But  time  has  changed  all  this. 
The  wealthy  have  moved  up  town  into  the  more 
fashionable  neighborhoods.  Here  and  there  a 
family  clings  to  the  old  Homestead;  but  now  the 
lower  part  of  the  city  is  crowded  with  a  popula- 
tion, that  without  Trinity  and  the  Catholic 
church,  would  be  without  any  means  of  religious 
■worship  and  destitute  of  any  spiritual  care. — 
Hence  it  is  that  Trinity  has  made  her  church — 
that  magnificent  edifice — and  the  chapels  free — 
almost  literally  free. 

IN  SENATE  Monday,  4  P.  M. 

There  never  would  have  been  any  difficulty  as 
to  the  right  to  participate  in  the  control  of  the 
affairs  of  this  church,  if  the  persons  who  claim 
that  they  are  now  excluded,  had  remained  in  the 
lower  parts  of  the  city,  where  they  and  their 
ancestors  resided  from  the  first  settlement  of 
New  York,  till  a  comparatively  recent  period. 
While  they  remained  withinthe  parish, — within 
the  congregation  of  Trinity,  or  of  her  chapels. — 
they  were  admitted  to  all  the  rights,  franchises 
and  privileges  which  the  corporators  now  enjoy; 
and  if  they  had  remained  within  her  congrnga- 
tion  and  under  her  Rector,  they  would  never 
have  forfeited  those  rights.  But  when  they  saw 
fit,  in  order  better  to  enjoy  the  abundant  wealth 
I  they  had  acquired,  to  move  up  town  into  more 
attractive  neighborhoods;  to  form  new  congre- 
gations; then  by  their  own  voluntary  act  they 
seceded  from  the  corporation  of  Trinity;  they 
severed  the  temporal  and  spiritual  relations  they 
held  to  the  Rector,  wardens,  vestrymen  and  con- 
gregation of  their  parish  church,  and  surrendered 
by  their  own  act  of  expatriation,  the  rights  they 
previously  enjoyed.  It  was  not  through  the 
charter;  it  was  not  through  the  act  of  1814;  it 
was  not  by  any  action  of  the  corporation  of  Trin- 
ity church,  the  Rector  or  the  vestry,  that  they 
were  deprived  of  the  right  of  corporators.  They 
chose  themselves  to  leave  the  congregation;  to 
sever  their  connection  with  it:  and  thus  to  deprive 
themselves  of  the  rights  which  attach  to  that  re- 
lation. What  does  the  act  of  1814  say?  That 
all  persons  belonging  to  Trinity  church  shall 
take  part  in  its  government.  Then  what  have 
these  gentlemen  to  do,  in  order  to  acquire  the 
right  they  seek?  Is  it  necessary  for  them  to  go 
to  the  courts  and  commence  law  suits?  'Is  it 
necessary  for  them  to  come  to  the  legislature 
year  after  year,  to  obtain  a  law  to  secure  to  them 
those  rights?  No;  the  act  of  1814  furnishes 
them  abundant  means  by  which  to  enjoy  equal 


rights  with  the  other  corporators  of  Trinity. 
They  have  nothing  more  nor  less  to  do,  than  to 
become  members  of  Trinity  congregation — com- 
municants of  her  church — to  occupy  a  seat  with- 
in it — and  to  return  to  that  relation  to  the  Rec- 
tor, wardens  and  vestry  of  the  church  which 
alone  enables  any  one  to  become  a  corporator, 
and  to  vote  at  her  elections.  All  the  difliculty 
arises  from  a  desire  to  do  an  impossible  thing, 
an  unheard-of  thing  in  church  government:  to 
leave  the  church,  to  sever  the  ecclesiastical  rela- 
tion with  its  Rector  and  congregation;  to  cease 
to  be  pew  holders;  to  form  another  congregation 
and  establisVi  another  church,  and  yet  to  hold  a 
share  in  the  control  and  government  of  the 
church  from  which  they  have  seceded.  To  choose 
a  Rector  for  a  church  to  which  they  have  ceased 
to  belong;  aind  to  disburse  the  revenue  of  a 
church  they  have  abandoned. 

I  therefore  say  that  it  is  not  the  law  of  1814 
or  any  other  law,  still  less  any  act  of  the  vestry, 
which  has  deprived  these  claimants  of  the  rights 
of  corporators  of  Trinity:  but  that  they  have 
ceased  to  possess  those  rights  by  their  own  vol- 
untary act.  Nor  does  the  act  of  1814  debar 
them  from  the  future  enjoyment  of  these 
privileges;  for  nothing  is  requisite  to  enable 
them  to  resume  and  enjoy  them,  but  their  own 
voluntary  act.  They  have  only  to  order  their 
coachmen  to  roll  on  down  Broadway;  they  have 
only  to  drive  down  to  Trinity  with  their  equip- 
ages, and  kneel  at  her  altar  beside  the  poor 
and  worthy  worshippers,  my  constituents,  who 
now  frequent  her  aisles,  and  all  these  coveted 
rights  and  privileges  of  which  they  claim  to 
have  been  deprived,  will  be  restored  to  them. 

I  find  in  the  speech  of  the  Senator  from  the 
22d  (Mr.  Noxon),  such  passages  as  these:  "Tell 
me  not  of  consecrated  justice  from  those  who  are 
steeped  in  iniquity! — Trinity  church  never  had 
any  right  in  the  property  she  unjustly  holds — 
The  church  usurps  it,  and  yet  the  Senator  talks 
about  consecrated  justice.  Consecrated  justice! 
Why,  I  wonder  that  the  embellishments  that 
surround  her  churches  do  not  cry  out  against 
her.  Consecrated  justice  in  usurpation!  Con- 
secrated justice,  in  iniquity!  Consecrated  just- 
ice in  robbing  men  of  their  rights!" 

Well,  Sir,  I  have  read  carefully  the  two  re- 
ports which  have  been  made  by  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee, and  the  testimony  taken  by  them;  and  if 
these  prove  "iniquity"  on  the  part  of  the  cor- 
poration, then  I  confess  I  have  failed  in  some 
way  to  comprehend  the  bearing  and  effect  of  the 
testimony;  for  I  undertake  to  say,  with  Mr. 
Jay,  who  was  never  friendlv  to  this  corporation, 
that  the  history  of  no  state  can  show  a  more 
faithful  and  stainless  performance  of  an  import- 
ant trust,  than  is  shown  by  the  record  of  the 
transactions  of  this  vestry. 

In  the  first  place  it  was  attempted  to  be  proved 
that  they  had  used  the  power  of  the  church  to 
favor  a  particular  class  of  doctrinal  opinions ;  that 
they  had  used  their  gifts  to  make  converts  to 
High  church  notions,  discriminating  against 
those  who  entertained  Low  church  views.  Sir, 


70 


look  at  the  testimony;  see  how  completely  this 
charge  was  refuted;  so  triumphantly,  that  all 
who  had  made  it  cried  "  enough!  "  The  charge 
was  abandoned  in  the  committee  room  and  never 
should  have  been  revived  here.  It  was  shown 
that  so  far  from  there  being  any  ground  for  such 
a  charge,  the  reverse  was  the  fact.  Trinity  has 
made  no  discrimination  in  her  gifts,  except  to 
discriminate  between  those  who  needed  them 
most  and  those  who  needed  them  least.  She  has 
endowed  Columbia  college  with  a  liberality  be- 
yond any  gifts  ever  made  by  any  city,  state  or 
church  to  a  similar  institution  in  this  country. 
She  has  established  a  free  college  in  the  interior 
of  this  state.  She  has  aided  tr.ore  than  two 
hundred  and  fifty  churches  in  the  state,  High 
church  and  Low  church.  She  has  given  liberal- 
ly— munificently — to  those  very  churches  whose 
representatives  are  now  here  assailing  her.  And 
is  this  a  church  to  be  characterized  on  the  floor 
of  the  Senate  of  the  state  of  New  York,  as  a 
thing  "  steeped  in  iniquity?  "  I  will  not  suffer 
such  a  slander  to  be  uttered  here  against  a  sacred 
and  good  institution,  without  rebuke. 

The  next  charge  is  that  Trinity  usurps  this 
property.  Is  there  not  a  simple  remedy  to  ap- 
ply to  those  who  wronsfully  hold  that  which 
does  not  belong  to  them?  Have  not  the  courts 
been  open  to  the  claimants  for  forty  years;  and 
has  any  one  of  them  been  found  willing  to  pre- 
sent the  question  to  a  legal  tribunal?  And  yet 
in  the  face  of  this  uninterrupted  acquiescence — 
this  silent  but  imposing  proof — that  there  is  no 
justice  in  the  claim,  its  advocates  rise  here,  and 
charge  the  church  with  "  usurpation  !  " 

We  are  next  told  that  the  country  churches 
have  been  "SUBSIDIZED"  by  Trinity.  The 
Senator  from  the  22d  (Mr.  Noxon)  says,  "I  see 
that  the  Honorable  Senator  from  the  27th  in  pre- 
senting one  of  the  Memorials  of  these  subsidized 
country  churches,  thought  fit  to  say  with  empha- 
sis that  it  was  from  a  low  church;"  and  he  adds 
"«/ie»e  churches  do  not  come  hereon  behalf  of 
Trinity,  unless  some  secret  spring  moves  and  con- 
trols their  action 

Sir,  the  Senator  and  his  friends  are  arnazed, 
overwhelmed  by  the  expression  coming  in  from 
every  county  in  the  State,  protesting  against  this 
law,  and  denouncing  the  att>^mpted  aggression. — 
That  expression  can  not  be  ignored.  It  must  be 
met  in  some  way  or  other,  and  here  is  a  con- 
venient mode!  Every  church  aided  by  Trinity 
has  been  "subsidized;"  it  has  been  bribed  to  send 
memorials  here,  asking  that  the  vested  rights  of 
the  corporation  may  be  maintained!  These 
churches  do  not  Ciime  here,  says  the  Senator,  un. 
less  some  secret  spring  moves  them.  Sir,  I  can 
tell  the  Senator  what  that  secrft  spring  is.  It 
is  the  love  of  Truth  and  Justice.  They  come 
here  to  save  Trinity  because  they  love  Trinity; 
and  I  hope  that  Senators  who  have  imputed  to 
these  congregations  in  their  own  midst,  these 
corrupt  and  infamous  motives,  will  one  day  be 
able  to  comprehend  how  much  easier  it  is  to  in- 
duce our  village  churches  to  send  remonstrances 
here  from  their  convictions  of  what  is  just  and 


right,  than  from  the  sordid  and  unworthy  con- 
siderations attributed  to  them  by  the  enemies  of 
Trinity  church. 

We  find,  Sir,  among  the  offences  laid  at  Trini- 
ty's door,  the  charge  that  she  controls  the  con- 
ventions of  the  diocese,  and  so  puts  in  power 
those  only  who  are  favorable  to  her  views.  There 
is  no  fact  to  justify  that  accusation;  not  one  has 
been  teferred  to  in  the  reports  ;  not  one  can  be 
produced  in  evidence.  In  all  the  conventions 
callpj  to  elect  a  Bishop,  for  years  past,  the  can- 
diilate  supposed  to  be  the  favorite  of  Trinity  has 
never  received  the  votes  of  one  fourth  of  the 
churches  receiving  aid  from  her  ;  the  candidate 
supported  by  Trinity  has  been  in  a  minority. — 
These  facts  show  that  no  such  result  as  Is 
claimed,  has  followed  the  distribution  of  her 
bounty. 

Sir,  the  theatre  has  been  resorted  to,  to  fur- 
nish a  standard  of  CO  nparison  with  this  church. 
We  have  been  told  of  wires  leading  from  the 
"Green  Room"  of  her  vestry,  connecting  with 
the  churches  in  the  interior,  which  she  has  only 
to  pull,  to  awaken  a  response.  The  honorable 
Senator  (Mr.  Noxon),  has  said,  "She  has  poured 
in  memorials  upon  us,  as  if  wires,  attached  to 
every  clergyman  in  the  state,  lead  into  the  green 
mom  of  her  vestry,  and  she  has  only  to  pull 
them  in  ordT  to  work  her  will." 

It  is  by  such  assaults,  by  such  depreciation  of 
what  has  been  hitherto  thought  respectable  and 
venerable,  that  the  opponents  of  Trinity  seek  to 
sustain  a  languishing  cause.  And  n^t  only  bad, 
but  forlorn  indeed  must  be  the  cause  that  is  driv- 
en to  sustain  itself  by  such  means. 

Sir,  when  this  subject  was  presented  to  the 
legislature  of  1847,  it  was  presented  on  its  real 
merits,  as  a  question  of  law,  arising  out  of  the 
construction  of  the  charter,  and  subsequent 
grants  and  statutes.  The  minds  of  those  who 
were  to  be  the  judges,  were  kept  free  from  mis- 
representation and  prejudice,  so  that  the  issues 
were  met  in  a  spirit  of  candor  and  truthfulness. 
The  result  was  the  signal  defeat  of  the  move« 
menl;  for  the  application  to  the  Legislature  of 
1S47,  did  not  receive  a  solitary  vote  in  the 
House  of  Assembly,  of  which  I  was  then  a 
member.  The  report  of  the  judiciary  committee 
was  unanimous  against  it,  and  it  was  approved 
with  equal  unanimity  in  the  aggregate  body.  But 
those  who  assail  Trinity  saw  that  in  any  future  at- 
tempt they  must  ge;  new  strength  some%vhere, 
and  some  how.  The  charter  remains  the  same 
now  as  it  was  in  1847.  Queen  Anne's  grant  is 
the  same — the  law  of  1814  is  the  same.  Every 
lawyer  on  the  side  of  the  assailants — and  there 
are  many  eminent  legal  gentlemen  among  them 
— had  long  been  striving  to  place  that  act  in  such 
a  light  before  the  legislature,  as  would  seem  to 
warrant  or  justify  an  attack  upon  it,  and  had 
failed.  Something  else,  then,  must  be  resorted 
to,  or  the  attempt  would  be  hopeless,  and  might 
as  well  be  abandoned. 

After  ten  years'  deliberation  they  decide  that 
before  they  can  induce  the  legislature  to  impair 
the  rights  of  the  church,  they  must  blacken  and 


71 


traduce  hv,  and  all  connected  with  her.  They 
must  arouse  the  heat  and  tumult  of  a  battle. 
They  must  poison  by  slander,  all  the  sources 
from  which  correct  iiilormalion  is  to  be  obtained. 
They  must  divert  and  distract  the  altt'niion  of 
the  legislature  from  the  real  points  of  the  case, 
and  fix  it  on  what  rumor  and  detraction  have 
called  the  errors  and  offences  of  the  chufch. 
They  must  summon  to  the  capitol  all  the  disap- 
pointed applicants  for  the  bounty  of  the  church. 
They  must  charge  the  vestry,  who  have  hereto- 
fore lived  an  unsullied  life,  with  a  corrupt  use  of 
their  power,  because  some  man  had  a  law  suit 
with  the  church  and  failed,  and  his  lease  was 
given  to  another.    Thi-y  must  bring  up  ihe  ru- 
mor here,  predicated  on  some  such  incident  83 
that,  that  the  vestry  have  been  in  the  habit  of 
granting  leases  corruptly  to  relatives  and  friends. 
This  is  the  new  process  by  which,  through  cla- 
mor, prejudice  and  slander,  they  hope  to  induce 
this  legislature  to  enter  seriously  on  a  project  of 
spoilaf  ion,  from  which,  looking  at  the  real  merits 
of  the  issue,  our  predecessors  recoiled. 

But,  sir,  the  enemy  is  not  content  with  assail- 
ing the  vestry  and  the  church.  The  name  and 
the  fame  of  the  bishop  have  been  dragged  into 
this  unhappy  controversy.  It  has  been  insinuated 
that  he  is  induced  to  advocate  the  cause  of  Trin- 
ity by  the  consideration  that  a  portion  of  his  sal- 
ary is  paid  by  that  corporation.  In  considering 
this  case,  and  in  looking  at  the  motives  of  those 
who  have  written  letters  and  remonstrances  on 
the  subject,  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  seem 
to  think  that  ihere  can  be  no  other  influence  at 
work  save  that  of  the  ''almighly  dollar."  They 
believe  that  the  bishop,  who  has  led  a  life  of  se- 
rene purity  and  piety;  whose  name  is  synony- 
mous all  over  the  state  with  whatever  is  exalted 
in  conduct  and  blameless  in  motive;  can  not 
write  a  pastoral  letter — a  letter  of  advice  to  his 
people — unless  some  "  secret  springs,"  some  sor- 
[  did  motives  govern  and  control  him  ! 

Bishop  Potter  was  not  the  first  choice  of  Trin- 
ity church;  he  was  not  her  candidate  for  Bish- 
op; and  I  happen  to  know  that  it  is  no  new  thin^ 
for  Bishop  Potter  to  stand  where  he  now  stands 
in  regard  to  this  Trinity  church  controversy. 
When  he  was  rector  of  St.  Peter's,  here  at  the 
capitol,  in  1847,  no  man  was  more  earnest  and 
zealous,  whithin  his  appropriate  sphere,  to  en- 
lighten the  mmds  of  legislators  as  to  the  true 
merit  of  the  question.  Trinity  church  did  not 
then  pay  any  portion  of  his  salary  as  rector  of 
St.  Peter's  in  Albany,  and  yet  he  was  among  the 
foremost  of  those  clergymen  of  the  interior,  who 
then  as  now  remonstrated  against  this  act  of  ag- 
gression. Sir.  I  remember  him  well  in  those 
days;  for  it  was  at  a  time  of  life  when  events 
leave  traces  on  the  mind,  not  easily  effaced.  It 
was  my  good  fortune  to  be  the  occupant  of  a 
chamber  near  his  own,  in  a  dwelling  not  far  from 
this  capitol,  while  the  rectory  was  being  re-built. 
I  was  then  here,  young,  without  friends  among 
the  great,  and  powerful,  and  influential;  and  I 
can  never  forget  the  kindness,  the  words  of 
cheering  counsel,  the  friendship  of  that  pure  and 


good  man;  and  I  cannot.  Sir,  hear  his  conduct 
questioned,  or  hear  dishonorable  motives  imputed 
tc  him,  without  indignation,  without  suffering 
a  sense  of  personal  wrong  which  I  can  not  re- 
press or  conceal.  Yes,  Sir,  he  was  my  friend  in 
those  days  when  first  I  sought 

 To  rise 

Out  of  tho  prison  of  my  m^an  estate, 
And  with  f  uch  jowele  a^i  tho  exploring  mind 
BriDgs  from  the  caves  of  knowledge,  buv  my  ranBom 
From  those  twin  jailers  ot  tho  daring  heart, 
Low  Birth,  and  Iron  Fortune! 

He  is  the  same  man  now,  as  then ;  pure  in  pur- 
pose, virtuous  in  life,  noble  in  thought,  devoted, 
as  few  men  even  in  his  holy  calling  have  been 
devoted,  to  the  good  of  mankind.  And,  Sir, 
wicked  and  desperate  indeed  inust  be  that  enter- 
prise, and  dark  and  dismal  its  prospects,  that 
can  find  no  other  means  by  which  to  sustain 
itself,  than  an  assault  on  the  character  of  such 
a  man  as  Bishop  Potter. 

I  desire,  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  Senate  to  some  of  the  legal  aspects 
of  this  case. 

It  is  conceded  that  Trinity  church  is  a  private 
corporation;  a  private  eleemosynary  corpoiation, 
created  by  a  charter  from  the  British  crown,  and 
confirmed  after  the  revolution  by  the  authority 
of  the  state;  that  she  holds  herflarge  estate  under 
that  charter  and  subsequent  royal  grants;  and 
the  general  question  is,  what  power,  if  any,  this 
Legislature  possesses  over  private  property,  or 
over  the  mode  and  manner  in  which  it  is  used 
and  controlled.  I  make  this  statement  of  the  exact 
character  of  the  issue,  in  order  to  show  the  Senate 
that  the  same  issue  precisely  in  legal  effect,  was 
presented  to  the  Supreme  Couit  of  the  United 
States  in  the  Dartmouth  college  case.  In  that 
case  the  highest  judicial  authority  in  the  Union, 
held  that  no  state  Legislature  had  any  such 
power,  and  that  any  statute  which  interfered 
with  such  property,  or  with  its  control  and  man- 
agement, was  null  and  void.  I  am  quite  aware 
that  the  lawyers  around  this  circle  are  familiar 
with  this  case;  and  that  in  citing  it  and  reading 
from  the  arguments  and  opinions,  I  am  wearying 
their  patience  by  a  repetition  of  what  they  have 
often  read;  yet  I  will  draw  the  attention  of  the 
Senate  somewhat  fully  to  the  case,  in  order  that 
those  Senators  who  are  not  lawyers  may  see 
what  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
would  say  of  such  a  law  as  we  are  now  impor- 
tuned to  pass. 

Dartmouth  college  was  established  in  New 
Hampshire  by  a  grant  of  the  British  crown 
in  the  year  1769,  for  the  purpose  of  spreading 
Christian  knowledge,  and  providing  the  means 
of  education  in  the  then  province.  The  legisla- 
ture of  New  Hampshire,  fancying  that  they 
could  govern  the  college,  or  appoint  people  to  go- 
vern it,  better  than  those  whom  the  charter  de- 
signed, passed  a  law  changing  the  name  of  the 
corporation  from  the  "  Trustees  of  Dartmouth 
College,"  to  I  he  Trustees  of  Dartmouth  Uni- 
versity," and  transferring  the  control  of  the  pro- 
perty of  the  old  corporation  to  the  new  organiza- 
tion.   The  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  found 


72 


within  the  limits  of  the  state  a  private  eleemosy- 
nary corporation,  created  for  the  purposes  of 
education,  existing  under  a  charter,  and  holding 
property  by  2;rants  from  the  British  crown;  just 
as  we  find  here  a  private  religious  corporation 
possessing  estates  derived  by  grant  from  the  Eng- 
lish crown;  and  which  corporation  was,  as  is  the 
one  now  in  question,  under  the  control  of  persons 
deriving  their  authority  from  the  original  char- 
ter. The  two  cases  are  precisely  identical,  with 
the  single  immaterial  difference  that  the  one  is 
a  religious  and  the  other  an  educational  institu- 
tion; although  Dartmouth  College,  I  ought  to  say 
to  be  strictly  accurate,  was  founded  to  promote 
religion  as  well  as  education. 

The  persons  appointed  by  the  legislature  of 
New  Hampshire  under  the  statute,  got  posses- 
sion of  the  books  of  the  college,  and  the  original 
corporators  sought  to  regain  the  custody  of  the 
book  of  records,  the  corporate  seal  and  other  cor- 
porate property.  Chief  Justice  Marshall  de- 
livered the  opinion  of  the  court;  and  although 
we  have  seen  a  recent  instance  at  least  in  which 
that  high  court  has  been  overruled  without  much 
ceremony  by  this  body  (I  allude  to  our  censure 
of  the  judges  who  rendered  the  decision  of  the 
court  in  the  Drcd  Scott  case,  and  whose  opinion 
we  have  not  yet  read;)  yet  I  hope  that  the  an- 
tiquity of  this  decision,  and  its  exemption  from 
all  those  questions  which  excite  partisan  feeling 
in  these  days,  will  secure  for  it  a  greater  degree 
of  respect. 

In  order  that  the  Senate  may  fully  understand 
the  nature  of  the  case,  and  the  points  decided  by 
the  court,  I  will  read  a  few  extracts  from  the 
memorable  argument  of  Daniel  Webster,  who 
appeared  for  the  college,  and  the  opinion  of  the 
court  delivered  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  which 
affirmed  Mr.  Webster's  positions : 

"  It  is  not  too  much  to  assert,  that  the  legisla- 
ture of  New  Hampshire  would  not  have  been 
competent  to  pass  the  acts  in  question,  and  to 
make  them  binding  on  the  plaintiffs  without 
their  assent,  even  if  there  had  been,  in  the  con- 
stitution of  New  Hampshire,  or  of  the  United 
States,  no  special  restriction  on  their  power; 
because  these  acts  are  not  the  exercise  of  a  power 
properly  legislative,  —  Calder  et  ux  v.  BuU^  3 
Ball.  386.  Their  object  and  effect  is  to  take 
away  from  one,  rights,  property  and  franchises, 
and  to  grant  them  to  another.  This  is  not  the 
exercise  of  a  legislative  power.  To  justify  the 
taking  away  of  vested  rights,  there  must  be  a 
forfeiture;  to  adjudge  upon  and  declare  which, 
is  the  proper  province  of  the  judiciary.  Attain- 
der and  confiscation  are  acts  of  sovereign  power, 
not  acts  of  legislation.  The  British  parliament, 
among  other  unlimited  powers,  claims  that  of 
altering  and  vacating  charters;  not  as  an  act  of 
ordinary  legislation,  but  of  uncontrolled  authority. 
It  is  theoretically  omnipotent.  Yet  in  modern 
times,  it  has  attempted  the  exercise  of  this  power 
very  rarely.  In  a  celebrated  instance,  those  who 
asserted  this  power  in  parliament,  vindicated  its 
exercise  only  in  a  case,  in  which  it  could  be 
shown,  1st.  That  the  charter  in  question  was  a 


charter  of  political  power;  2d.  That  there  was  a 
great  and  overruling  state  necessity,  justifying 
the  violation  of  the  charter;  3d.  That  the  char- 
ter had  been  abused  and  justly  forfeited. — Annual 
Reg.  1784,  ;),  160.  Parlia.  R(g.  1783.  Mr. 
Barkers  Speech  on  Mr.  Fix''s  E.  I.  Bill.  Burke's 
Woiks,  Vol.  III. p.  414,  417,  467,  468,  486.  The 
bill  affecting  this  charter  did  not  pass.  Its  his- 
tory is  well  known.  The  act  which  afterwards 
did  pass,  passed  with  the  assent  of  the  corpora' 
tion.  Even  in  the  worst  times,  this  power  of 
parliament  to  repeal  and  rescind  charters  has  not 
otten  been  exercised.  The  illegal  proceedings 
in  the  reign  of  Charles  II,  were  under  color  of 
law.  Judgments  of  forfeiture  were  obtained  ia 
the  Courts.  Such  was  the  ease  of  the  quo  war- 
ranto against  the  city  of  London,  and  the  pro- 
ceedings by  which  the  charter  of  Massachusetts 
was  vacated.  The  legislature  of  New  Hamp- 
shire has  no  more  power  over  the  rights  of  the 
plaintiffs  than  existed,  some  where,  in  some  de- 
partment of  government,  before  the  revolution. 
The  British  parliament  could  not  have  annulled 
or  revoked  this  grant  as  an  act  of  ordinary  legis- 
lation. If  it  had  done  it  at  all,  it  could  only 
have  been  in  virtue  of  that  sovereign  power  call- 
ed omnipotent,  which  does  not  belong  to  any 
legislation  in  the  United  States." 

******* 

"I  hope  enough  has  been  said  to  show,  that 
the  trustees  possessed  vested  liberties,  privileges, 
and  immunities,  under  this  charter;  and  that 
such  liberties,  privileges,  and  immunities,  being 
once  lawfully  obtained  and  vested,  are  as  invio- 
lable as  any  vested  rights  of  property  whatever. 
Rights  to  do  certain  acts,  such,  for  instance,  as 
tbe  visitation  and  superintendence  of  a  college, 
and  the  appointment  of  its  officers,  may  surely 
be  vested  rights,  to  all  legal  intents,  as  complete- 
ly as  the  right  to  possess  property.  A  late 
learned  Judge  of  this  Court  has  said,  '  when  I 
say,  that  a  right  is  vested  in  a  citizen,  I  mean, 
that  he  has  the  power  to  io  certain  actions,  or  to 
possess  certain  things,  according  to  the  law  of 
land.'— 3  Dal.  394." 

******* 

"  The  American  people  have  said,  in  the  consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  that  "no  state  shall 
pass  any  bill  of  attainder,  cx  post  facto  law,  or 
law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contract.s."  In 
the  same  instr\iment  they  have  also  said,  "  that 
the  judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  in 
law  and  equity  arising  under  the  constitution." 
On  the  judges  ot  this  court,  then,  is  imposed  the 
high  and  solemn  duty  of  protecting,  from  even 
legislative  violation,  those  contracts  which  ths 
constitution  of  our  country  has  placed  beyond 
legislative  control;  and,  however  irksome  the 
task  may  be,  this  is  a  duty  from  which  we  dare 
not  shrink." — Marshall,  C.  J. 

******* 

"It  can  require  no  argument  to  prove,  that 
the  circumstances  of  this  constitute  a  contract. 
An  application  is  made  to  the  crown  for  a  charter 
to  incorporate  a  religious  and  literary  institution. 
In  the  application,  it  is  stated  that  large  contri- 


73 


butions  have  been  made  for  the  object,  which 
will  be  conferred  on  the  corporation,  as  soon  as 
it  shall  be  created.  The  charter  is  granted,  and 
on  its  faith  the  property  is  conveyed.  Surely  in 
this  transactions  every  ingredient  of  a  complete 
and  legitimate  contract  is  to  be  found." — Mar- 
shall,  C.  J. 

"  This  is  plainly  a  contract  to  which  the  do- 
nors, the  trustees,  and  the  crown  (to  whose 
rights  and  oblisations  New  Hampshire  succeeds), 
were  the  original  parties  It  is  a  contract  made 
on  a  valuable  consideration.  Jt  is  a  contract  for 
the  security  and  disposition  of  property.  It  is  a 
contract  on  the  faith  of  which,  real  and  personal 
estate  has  been  cmveyed  to  the  corporation.  It 
is  then  a  contract  within  the  letter  of  the  consti- 
tution, and  within  its  spirit  also,  unless  the  fact, 
that  the  property  is  invested  by  the  donors  in 
trustees  for  the  promotion  of  religion  and  educa- 
tion, for  the  benetit  of  persons  who  are  perpe- 
tually changing,  though  the  objects  remain  the 
same,  shall  create  a  particular  exception  taking 
this  case  out  of  the  prohibition  contained  in-the 
constitution." — M'lrshall,  C.  J. 

#♦*«*♦* 

"Almost  all  eleemosynary  corporations,  those 
vrfaich  are  created  for  the  promotion  of  reli- 
gion, of  charity,  oi  of  education,  are  of 
the  same  character.  The  law  of  this  case 
IS  THE  LAW  OF  ALL.  In  every  literary  or 
charitable  institution,  unless  the  objects  of  the 
bounty  be  themselves  incorporated,  the  whole 
legal  interest  is  in  trustees,  and  can  be  asserted 
only  by  them." — Marshall. 

***** 

"  The  opinion  of  the  court,  after  mature  deli- 
beration is,  thit  this  is  a  contract,  the  obligation 
of  which  can  not  be  impaired,  without  violating 
the  constitution  of  the  Uuited  States.  This 
opinion  appears  to  us  to  be  equally  supported  by 
leason,  and  by  the  former  decisions  of  this  court." 
■— Marshall,  C.  J. 

***** 

"  It  has  been  shown,  that  the  charter  is  a  con- 
tract on  the  part  of  the  government,  that  the 
property  with  which  the  charity  is  endowed, 
shall  be  forever  vested  in  a  certain  Humber  of 
persons,  and  their  successors,  to  subserve  the 
particular  purposes  designated  by  the  founder, 
and  to  be  managed  in  a  particular  way.  If  a 
law  increases  or  diminishes  the  number  of  the 
trustees,  they  are  not  the  persons  which  the 
grantor  agreed  should  be  the  managers  of  the 
fund.  If  it  iippropriale  the  fund  intended  for 
tht  support  of  a  particular  charity  to  that  of 
name  other  charity,  or  to  an  entirely  different 
charity,  the  grant  it  in  effect  set  aside,  and  a 
neie  contract  substituted  in  its  place;  thus 
changing  the  objects  of  his  bounty.  And  can  it 
be  seriously  contended,  that  a  law,  which  changes 
so  materially  the  terms  of  a  contract,  does  not 
impair  it?  In  short,  does  not  every  alteration  of 
acontract,  however  unimportant,  even  though  it 
be  manifestly  for  the  interest  of  the  party  ob- 
jecting to  it,  impair  its  obligation?  If  the  assent 
of  all  the  parties  to  be  bound  by  a  contract  be  of 


its  essence,  how  is  it  possible  that  a  new  con- 
tract, substituted  for,  or  engrafted  on  another, 
vtithou  such  assent,  should  not  violate  the  old 
charter?" — Mr.  Justice  Washington. 

***** 
"Upon  the  whole,  I  am  of  opinion,  that  the 
above  acts  of  New  Ha-npshire,  not  havinsf  re- 
ceived the  assent  of  the  corporate  body  of  Dirt- 
mouth  College,  are  not  binding  on  them,  and 
consequently,  that  the  judgment  of  the  State 
Court  ought  to  be  reversed." — Mr.  Justice  Wash- 
ington. 

»  *  #  #  * 

"  When  a  private  eleemosynary  corporation  is 
thus  created  by  the  charter  of  the  crown,  it  is 
subject  to  no  other  control  on  the  part  of  the 
crown  than  what  is  expressly  or  implicitly  re- 
served for  this  purpose,  the  crown  can  r.ot,  m 
virtue  of  its  preroaative,  without  the  consent  of 
the  corporation,  alter  or  amend  the  charter,  or 
divest  the  corporation  of  any  of  its  franchises,  or 
add  to  them,  or  add  to,  or  diminish,  the  number 
of  its  trustees,  or  remove  any  of  the  members, 
or  change,  or  control  the  administration  of  the 
charity,  or  compel  the  corporation  to  receive  a 
new  charter.  This  is  the  uniform  language  of 
the  authorities,  and  forms  one  of  the  most  stub- 
born, and  well-settled  doctrines  of  the  common 
law.— S'ory.  See  Rex.  v.  Passmore.  3  T.  R. 
199,  and  the  cases  there  cited." 

***** 
"  In  my  judgment  it  is  perfectly  clear,  that 
any  act  of  a  legislature  which  takes  away  any 
powers  or  franchises  vested  by  its  charter  in  a 
private  corporation  or  its  corporate  officers,  or 
which  restrains  or  controls  the  legitimate  ex- 
ercise of  them,  or  transfers  them  to  other  persons 
■uithout  its  assent,  is  a  violation  of  the  obliga- 
tions  of  that  charter.  If  the  legislature  mean  to 
claim  such  an  authority,  it  must  be  reserved  in 
the  grant.  The  charter  of  Dartmouth  College 
contains  no  such  reservation;  and  I  am  there- 
fore, bound  to  declare,  that  the  acts  of  the  legis- 
lature of  New  Hampshire,  now  in  question,  do 
impair  the  obligations  of  that  charter,  and  are, 
consequently,  unconstitutional  and  void." — Story. 

*  *  »  *  * 

Now  the  idea  has  been  not  a  little  pressed  upon 
those  around  this  circle  who  are  not  lawyers, 
that  this  church  is  within  the  control  of  the  Leg- 
islature, because  it  is  a  corporation;  and  we  have 
been  asked,  "  do  you  not  constantly  repeal  or 
alter  the  charters  of  incorporated  com.panies— of 
banks  and  railroads,  insurances,  and  rrianufac- 
turing  corporations;  and  why  should  you  not 
possess  the  same  right  to  de.il  with  this  corpora- 
tion as  with  any  other?"  The  answer  is  two- 
fold. In  the  first  place  you  acquire  the  right  to 
alter,  repeal  or  modify  the  act  of  incorporation  of 
a  bank,  a  railroad,  or  an  insurance  company,  be- 
cause you  reset  ve  that  right  in  the  act  forming 
the  corporation.  One  of  the  sections  in  every 
act  you  have  passed  for  the  last  twenty-five 
years,  creating  a  corporation,  contains  an  express 
provision  which  kee^s  that  power  within  your 
hands.    And  now  let  me  tell  you  why  such  a 


10 


74 


section  is  put  into  these  acts.  It  it  on  the  au- 
thority of  this  very  decision  which  I  hold  in  my 
hand.  It  is  because  the  supreme  court  of  the 
United  States  held,  in  the  Dartmouth  College 
case,  that  without  this  reservation  in  the  act  of 
incorporation,  the  Legislature  of  the  state  has 
no  power  to  alter,  amend  or  repeal  the  charter, 
without  the  consent  of  the  corporation,  and  that 
the  only  power  over  such  charters,  rests  in  the 
courts. 

In  the  charter  of  Trinity  church,  this  ri^ht  is 
not  reserved;  and  if  this  country  had  continued 
under  the  rule  of  the  British  crown,  no  power 
on  earth  would  have  been  able  to  alter  or  repeal 
that  charter,  except  the  British  Parliament;  and 
or  ly  the  Parliament  because  according  to  the 
theory  of  the  British  constitution,  the  power  of 
the  Parliament  is  absolute.  It  is  far  otherwise 
with  Legislatures  in  this  country.  Ours  is  a 
limited,  not  an  absolute  power.  Both  make 
laws;  the  one  in  the  exercise  of  absolute  legisla- 
tive power,  the  other  under  limited  powers  de- 
rived from  a  written  constitution.  Here,  the 
absolute  power  rests  not  with  the  Legislature, 
but  with  the  people;  and  is  exercised  only  by 
them  when  they  perform  the  sovereign  act  of 
framing  a  constitution.  When  they  do  that, 
they  delegate  certain  powers  and  duties  to  the 
Legislative,  Judicial,  and  Executive  branches  of 
the  government.  This  Legislature  does  not  possess 
— because  it  is  in  no  way  delegated  to  us — any 
power  over  the  private  property  of  individuals 
or  corporations  in  this  state;  except  in  one  soli- 
tary instance,  when,  by  what  is  called  the  right 
of  "eminent  domain,"  we  take  private  property 
when  the  public  good  demands  it,  for  public  use, 
upon  making  to  its  owner  full  and  adequate  com- 
pensation. And  this  is  a  power  expressly  grant- 
ed by  the  constitution. 

Now,  we  have  seen  that  this  corporation  of 
Trinity  church  is  a  private  corporation,  possess- 
ing private  property,  dedicated  to  certain  uses. 
No  authority  can  be  found  in  the  constitution  of 
the  state  or  in  the  adju  lications  of  the  courts, 
for  any  such  assumption  of  power  by  the  legisla- 
ture as  we  are  now  called  upon  to  sanction. 

Hear  what  Chief  Justice  IVIarshall  says  on  this 
point: 

"Whence,  then,  can  be  derived  the  idea,  that 
Dartmouth  College  has  become  a  public  institu- 
tion, and  its  trustees  public  officers,  exercising 
powers  conferred  by  the  public  for  public  objects? 
Not  from  the  source  whence  its  funds  were 
drawn;  for  its  foundation  is  purely  private  and 
eleemosynary — not  from  the  application  of  those 
funds;  for  money  may  be  given  for  education, 
and  the  persons  receiving  it  do  not,  by  being  em- 
ployed in  the  education  of  youth,  become  mem- 
bers of  the  civil  government.  Is  it  from  the  act 
of  incorporation?    Let  this  subject  be  considered. 

A  corporation  is  an  artificial  being,  invisible, 
intangible,  and  existing  only  in  contemplation  of 
law.  Being  the  mere  creature  of  law,  it  pos- 
sesses only  those  properties  which  the  charter  of 
its  creation  confers  upon  it,  either  expressly,  or 
as  incidental  to  its  very  existence.     These  are 


such  as  are  supposed  best  calculated  to  effect  the 
object  for  which  it  was  created.  Among  th? 
most  important  are  immortality,  and,  if  the  ex- 
pression may  be  allowed,  individuality;  proper- 
ties, by  which  a  perpetual  succession  of  many 
persons  are  considered  as  the  same,  and  may  act 
as  a  single  individual.  They  enable  a  corpora- 
tion to  manase  its  own  affairs,  and  to  hold  pro- 
perty without  the  perplexing  intricacies,  the 
hazardous  and  endless  necessity,  of  perpetual 
conveyances  for  the  purpose  of  transmitting  it 
from  hand  to  hand.  It  is  chiefly  for  the  purpose 
of  clothing  bodies  of  men,  in  succession,  with 
these  qualities  and  capacities,  that  corporations 
were  invented,  and  are  in  use.  By  these  means, 
a  perpetual  succession  of  individuals  are  capable 
of  acting  for  the  promotion  of  the  particular  ob 
ject,  like  one  immortal  being.  But  this  being 
does  not  share  in  the  civil  government  of  the 
country,  unless  that  be  the  purpose  for  which  it 
was  created.  Its  immortality  no  more  confers 
on  it  political  power,  or  a  political  character, 
than  immortality  would  confer  such  power  or 
character  on  a  natural  person.  It  is  no  more  a 
state  instrument,  that  a  natural  person  exerciS' 
ing  the  same  powers  would  be.  If,  then,  a  nat 
ural  person,  employed  by  individuals  in  the  edu 
cation  of  youth,  or  for  the  government  of  a  sem- 
inary  in  which  youth  is  educated,  would  not 
become  a  public  officer,  or  be  considered  as  ai 
member  of  the  civil  government,  how  is  it,  that 
this  artificial  being,  created  by  law,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  being  employed  by  the  same  individuals, 
for  the  same  purposes,  should  become  a  part  of 
the  civil  government  of  the  country?  Is  is  be- 
cause its  existence,  its  capacities,  its  powers,  arefci, 
given  by  law?  Because  the  government  has  £ 
given  it  the  power  to  take  and  to  hold  property  uj 
in  a  particular  form,  and  for  particular  purposes 
has  the  government  a  consequent  right  substan-i 
tially  to  change  that  form,  or  to  vary  the  pur- 
poses to  which  the  property  is  to  be  applied '( 
This  principle  has  never  been  asserted  or  recog-j 
nized,  and  is  supported  by  no  authority." 

So  in  that  way,  the  Supreme  Court  disposes  i„ 
the  idea  that  we  acquire  a  right  to  interfere  iij 
the  control  and  government  of  a  corporation^  ,,| 
simply  because  it  is  a  corporation.  It  makes  nc 
difference  in  law  if  the  possession  of  property  ii; 
in  an  individual  or  corporation.  Each  has  equa, 
immunities  with  the  other.  You  may  proceei 
against  a  corporation  in  the  courts.  If  it  deniei 
rights  to  private  individuals,  you  can  cornpel 
by  a  mandamus  to  do  them  justice.  If  its  offi, 
cers  misappropriate  funds  or  abuse  their  trust, 
you  can  obtain  an  injunction  against  them  ami 
restrain  them  from  acting.  If  they  have  goni^ 
beyond  their  charier,  and  usurped  powers  tha 
do  not  belong  to  them,  you  can  proceed  by  in 
formation  in  the  nature  of  a  quo  warranto,  am 
if  sufficient  cause  be  shown,  the  courts  will  dis 
solve  the  corporation.  And  these  are  the  onl; 
legal  modes  by  which  you  can  bring  a  priviit 
corporation  within  the  authority  of  the  govi  i  n 
ment,  and  subject  it  to  the  operation  of  the  hiv 
of  the  land.    And  this  is  no  injustice.    It  cover 


75 


*  every  conceivable  case  of  wrong,  while  it  saves 
"    from  disturbance  and  violation  those  objects 

created  for  all  time,  and  intended  only  to  be  sub- 
jected  to  the  salutary  restraints  of  the  courts  of 
'!    justice.    This  judicial  control  is  entirely  ade- 
^    quate  to  meet  all  the  grievances  complained  of 

*  here,  not  exoludino^  those  said  to  result  from  the 
act  of  IS  14,  because  if  that  statute  was  passed  in 

^  '•  derogation  of  vested  rights,  it  would  be  declared 
^  j  null  and  void  by  the  courts. 

I     This  same  question  was  presented  in  a  mem- 
^  I  orable  instance  in   English  history.  Indeed, 
these  contests  with  private  eleemosynary  cor- 
porations,  whether  colleges  or  churches,  seem 
-1  ever  to  have  been  favorite  occupations  with  am- 
'   bitious  {legislators  and  reckless  monarchs.  All 
will   remember   the  controversy  which  King 
4    James  had   with  Magdelen  college.    It  was  one 
of  a  series  of  oppressive  acts  which  subjected 
'   him  to  the  indignation  of  the  English  people. 
'■^   The  King  undertook  to  furnish  Magdelen  college, 
Oxford,  with  a  President — one  Parker.  The 
^   Fellows  of  the  college,  who  by  the  charter  of 
the  crown  had  been  invested  wilh  the  control  of 
its    affairs,  declined  to  induct  Parker   in  the 
Presidency.     The  King  was  obstinate.  The 
*■  Fellows  still  refused.    Then  his  Majesty  sent 
down  a  commission,  empowered  by  the  royal  au- 
thority  and  backed  by  the  troops  to  install  Parker. 
■  Of  course  the  Fellows  were  forced  to  yield  to 
this  demonstration  of  physical  power ;  but  an 
'   ippeal  was  afterwards  made  to  the  courts.  "My 
Lords,"  said  Dr.  Hough,  the  president  elect- 
"  sd  by  the  college,  to  the  King's  commission- 
"  ;rs,  ''you  have  this  day  deprived  me  of  my 
reehold;  I  hereby  protest  against  all  your  pro- 
■eedings  as  illegal,  unjust  and  null;  and  I  appeal 
lom  you  to  our  sovereign  lord  the  King  in  his 
ourts  of  justice."    And  although  it  was  a  pe- 
riod when  the  crown  had  exercised  remarkable 
power  over  the  decisions  of  the  court  of  King's 
'  Bench,  there  was  not  found  one  solitary  judge 
-■  to  justify  the  attempt  of  the  English  Kiiig  to 
Interfere  with,  and  control  the  government  of  a 

-  private  corporation,  which  by  its  charter  was 

-  mnfided  to  its  own  board  of  trustees;  and  no 
;ourt  lawyer  could  be  found  so  unfaithful  to  the 

^'   eachings  of  his  profession,  so  disloyal  to  that 
'  /eneration  for  vested  rights  which  his  profession, 
ibove  all  others,  teaches,  as  to  maintain  that  the 
^  Sing  had  not  transcended  his  power  and  his 
jerogative,  in  this  attempt  to  violate  the  vested 
'    chartered  rights  of  a  private  corporation.  The 
'-■  :ourts  restored  to  the  office  of  President,  Dr. 
-■  Sough,  the  man  whom  the  King  had  turned  out. 

-  This  act.  Sir,  has  always  been  characterized  in 
. :  listory,  and  is  condemned  by  Burnet  and  Hume 

i  ind  Macauly,  as  one  of  the  worst  acts  of  tyranny 
"J  .vbich  maiked  that  revolutionary  period. 

-  "  '  The  nation,  as  well  as  the  university,' 

-  lays  Bishop  Burnet,  {Hist,  of  his  oxon  times,  vol. 
n  i,  p.  139.)  •  looked  on  all  these  proceedings 
■ri   ^ith  just  indignation.    It  was  thought  an  open 

!."  tittt  of  robbery  and  burglary,  when  wjen,  author- 
■  )  zed  by  no  legal  commission,  came  and  forcibly 
coi!   Mrned  men  out  of  their  possession  and  freehold,' 


Mr.  Hume,  although  a  man  of  different  temper, 
and  of  other  sentiments,  in  some  respects,  than 
Dr.  Burnet,  speaks  of  tliis  arbitrary  attempt  of 
prerogative,  in  terms  not  less  decisive.  '  The 
president,  and  all  the  fellows,'  says  he,  '  except 
two,  who  complitd  were  expelled  the  college; 
and  Parker  was  put  in  possession  of  the  office. 
This  act  of  violence,  of  all  those  which  were 
committed  during  the  reign  of  James,  is  perhaps 
the  most  illegal  and  arbitrary.  When  the  dis- 
pensing power  was  the  most  strenuously  insisted 
on  by  court  lawyers,  it  had  still  been  allowed, 
that  the  statutes  which  regard  private  property 
could  not  legally  be  infringed  by  that  preroga- 
tive. 

And  Senators,  this  is  one  of  the  stains  on  Bri- 
tish history  which  you  are  called  upon  to  imi- 
tate. You  are  urged  to  do  much  the  same  thing, 
though  not  precisely  similar  in  the  form  which 
James  followed. 

You  do  not  name  the  vestry  in  the  bill — 
as  you  have  lately  been  so  much  in  the  habit  of 
doing  with  respect  to  commissioners  in  the  city 
of  New  York;  you  do  not  authorize  the  Governor 
and  Senate  to  appoint  a  vestry  for  Trinity  church 
— a  mode  of  appointment,  which  has  become  the 
fashionable  substitute  now-a-days  for  legislative 
appointment;  but  you  do  devise  a  scheme  by 
which  you  deprive  those  who  worship  in  the 
church,  of  the  right  to  choose  their  own  rector 
and  vestry,  and  give  it  to  outside  congregations. 
You  do  not  appoint  the  rector  and  vestry  of 
Trinity  directly;  but  you  rfo  appoint  them  indi- 
rectly by  directing  how  they  shall  be  chosen. — 
You  do  not  assail  the  corporation,  as  King  James 
did,  with  the  audacity  of  a  tyrant,  but  with  the 
meanness  of  a  sneak!  Nume  them  in  the  bill. 
Sir!  Do  it  like  men,  and  stand  up  to  what  you 
do.  Take  hold  of  this  charter — resolve  that  it 
is  putty,  and  that  you  can  mo  ild  and  shape  it 
as  you  will.  Assume  the  power  and  the  respon- 
sibility together.  But  do  not,  in  this  cowardly 
way  attempt  to  break  down  the  bulwarks,  which 
through  long  centuries,  and  through  many  scenes 
of  turmoil  and  danger  have  preserved  this  cor- 
poration sacred  from  violation. 

There  are  numerous  cases  bearing  upon  this 
subject,  all  of  which  maintain  the  same  doctrine 
as  that  established  in  the  Dartmouth  college 
case,  that  these  are  private  rights,  sacred  from 
any  interference,  and  that  charters  granted  by 
the  legislature  are  in  the  nature  of  contracts 
and  can  not  be  changed  without  consent  of  the 
corporation  unless  the  right  is  specially  re- 
served. 

In  the  case  of  the  University  versus  Foy — 2nd 
Heywood — the  Supreme  Court  of  North  Caroli- 
na pronounced  unconstitutional  and  void  a  law 
repealing  a  grant  to  the  University  of  North 
Carolina,  an  institution  created  and  endowed  by 
the  State.  In  Terrell  versus  Taylor — 9  Cranch, 
p.  43 — the  Supreme  Court  of  the  U.  S.  decided 
that  a  grant  or  confirmation  of  lands  for  the  pur- 
pose of  moral  or  religious  instruction  could  not 
be  rescinded.  Then  there  is  the  case  of  the  So 
ciety  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  foreign 


76 


parts,  versus  the  town  of  New  Haven  and  Wil- 
liam Wheeler.  The  whole  subject  was  fully 
considered  in  that  case,  and  the  power  of  the 
legislature  over  this  class  of  private  corporations 
■was  denied  on  constitutional  grounds.  That 
Society  was  created  by  royal  charter  from 
William  III,  and  the  grant  of  one  sixty-eighth 
share  of  the  town  of  New  Haven  was  made  to 
it  for  the  advancement  of  religion  and  education. 
In  1794  the  legislature  of  Connecticut  passed 
an  act  declaring  that  the  rights  to  the  land  thus 
granted  to  ih3  society  should  revert  to  the  re- 
spective towns  in  which  such  lands  lay,  in  trust 
for  the  same  objects.  Under  this  act,  the  select- 
men of  the  town  of  New  Haven  executed  a  lease 
to  William  Wheeler  who  entered  into  possession 
of  a  portion  of  this  estate.  The  action  was 
brought  by  the  Society  to  eject  him.  Judg- 
ment was  given  to  the  plaintiffs  and  the  court 
said:  "the  proper  courts  in  this  country  will  in- 
terfere to  prevent  an  abuse  of  the  trusts  con- 
fided to  British  corporations  holding  lands  here 
to  charitable  uses,  and  will  aid  in  enforcing  the 
due  execution  of  the  trusts  ;  but  neither  thoie 
court!  nor  the  local  legislatures  where  the  lands 
lie  can  at] judge  a  forfeiture  of  the  franchises  of 
the  foreign  corporation,  or  of  its  properly  " 

There  are  one  or  two  passages  from  the  case 
Terret  versus  Taylor,  which  I  should  like  to 
read,  more  especially  as  that  case  involves  the 
rights  of  a  church  possessing  a  charter  very 
mu'rh  like  that  of  Trinity.  Mr,  Justice  Story  de- 
livered the  opinion  of  the  Court.    He  says  : 

"  Be  however,  the  general  authority  of  the 
legislature  as  to  the  subject  of  religion,  as  it  may, 
it  will  require  other  arguments  to  establish  the 
position  that,  at  the  revolution,  all  the  public 
property  acquired  by  the  Episcopal  churches, 
under  the  sanction  of  the  laws,  became 
the  property  of  the  state.  Had  the  property  thus 
acquired  been  originally  granted  by  the  state  or 
the  king,  there  might  have  been  some  color  (and 
it  would  have  been  but  a  color)  for  such  an  ex- 
traordinary pretension.  But  the  property  was, 
in  fact  and  in  law,  generally  purchased  by  the 
parishioners,  or  acquired  by  the  benefactions  of 
pious  donors.  The  title  thereto  was  indefeasibly 
vested  in  the  churches,  or  rather  in  their  legal 
agents.  It  was  not  in  the  power  of  the  crown  to 
seize  or  assume  it;  nor  of  the  parliament  itself  to 
destroy  the  grants,  unless  by  the  exercise  of  a 
power  the  most  arbitrary,  oppressive  and  un- 
just, and  endured  only  because  it  could  not  be 
resisted." 

These  statutes  were  passed  with  the  consent  of 
the  corporation  and  were  accepted  by  it,  and  an 
attempt  was  aftTwards  made  by  the  state  of 
Virginia,  to  encroach  on  the  vested  rights  thus 
conferred.  This  attempt  was  made  under  cir- 
cumstances very  similar  to  those  which  called 
for  the  lawof  1S14  by  the  legislators  of  this  state. 
Virginia  found  within  her  borders  a  church  ac- 
ting as  an  "established  church,"  and  inconsistent 
with  the  new  state  of  things,  consequent  upon  the 
revolution.  They  did  not  conform  the  charter  to 
our  new  form  of  government,  but  they  thought 


they  could  go  further,  and  divest  the  church  of 
its  corporate  rights.  Out  of  this  the  controversy 
arose,  and  the  court  goes  on  to  say  : 

"If  the  legislature  po.saessed  thu  authority  to 
make  such  a  grant  and  confirmation,  it  is  very 
clear  to  our  minds  that  it  ves'ed  an  indefeasible 
and  irrevocable  title.  We  have  no  knowleilge  of 
any  authority  or  principle  which  could  support 
the  doctrine  that  a  legislative  grant  is  revocable 
in  Its  own  nature,  and  held  only  durjint  bene  pla- 
cite.  Such  a  doctrine  would  uproot  the  very 
foundations  of  almost  all  the  land  titles  in  Vir- 
ginia, and  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  a  great 
and  fundamental  principle  of  a  republican  gov- 
ernment, the  right  of  the  citizens  to  the  free  en- 
joyment of  their  property  legally  acquired." 

Now,  that  is  what  the  state  of  New  York  did 
in  the  case  of  Trinity  church,  in  the  act  of  i 
1784  ;  with  the  consent  of  the  corporation,  we  ; 
so  modified    the    charter    as   to    bring  the 
church  into  relation  with  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal church  of  the  state  of  New  York,  and  separ- 
ate it  from  the  established  church  of  England  ; 
and  we  changed  the  mode  of  the  election  and  in- 
duction of  the  rector,  by  depriving  the  authori-  i 
ties  of  the  English  church  of  their  power  in  the  i 
premises  and  vesting  it  in  the  corporation.  Such 
a  statute,  with  the  assent  of  the  corporation,  we  I 
had  authority  to  pass;  so  we  had  like  authority,  I 
with  the  assent  of  the  corporation,  to  pass  the  I 
law  of  1814,  changing  the  name  of  the  corpora-  i 
tion,  and  declaring  the  qualifications  of  corpora-  i 
tors.    But  see  what  the  supreme  court  says  as 
to  the  power  of  the  legislature  in  such  cases  when 
its  interposition  is  not  asked  for  by  a  private  i 
corporation;  and  against  its  consent.  j  i 

"How  far  the  statute  of  17S6,  c/t.  12,  repeal-  i 
ing  the  stature  of  1784  ch.  88.  incorporating  the  '  i 
Episcopal  churches,  and  the  subsequent  statutes  i 
in   furtherance  thereof  of  1788,  ch.  47,  and  ch. 
53,  were  consistent  with  the  principles  of  civil 
right  or  the  constitution  of  Virginia,  is  a  subject 
of  much  delicacy,  and  perhaps  not  without  diffi- 
culty.   It  is  observable,  however,  that  they  re- 
serve to  the  churches  all  their  corporate  proper- 
ty, and  authorize  the  appointment  of  trustees  to 
manage  the  same.    A  private  corporation  creat- 
ed by  the  legislature  may  loose  its  franchises  by  « 
a  misuser  or  a  nonuser  of  them ;  and  they  may  be 
resumed  by  the  government  under  a  judicial 
judgment  upon  a  quo  warranto  to  asce'tain  and 
enforce  the  forfeiture.    This  is  the  common  law 
of  the  land,  and  is  a  tacit  condition  annexed  to  i 
the  creation  of  every  such  corporation.    Upon  a  i 
change  of  government,  too,  it  may  be  admitted 
that  such  exclusive  privileges  attached  to  a  private 
corporation  as  are  inconsistent  with  the  new 
government  maybe  abolished.    In  respect,  also, 
to  public  corporations  which  exist  only  for  pub- 
lic purposes,  such  as  counties,  towns,  cities,  SfC, 
the  legislature  may,  under  proper  limitations,  i 
have  a  right  to  change,  modify,  enlarge  or  re- 
strain them,  securing  however,  the  property  fo  i 
the  uses  of  those  for  whom  and  at  whose  expen*  i 
it  was  originally  purchased.    But  that  the  legis  |  | 
lature  can  repeal  statutes  creating  private  corpol;  i 


77 


rations,  or  confirming  to  them  property  already 
acquired  under  the  faith  of  previous  laws,  and  by 
such  repeal  can  vest  the  property  of  such  corpo- 
rations exclusively  in  the  state,  or  dispose  of  the 
same  to  such  purposes  as  they  may  please,  with- 
out the  consent  or  default  of  the  corporators,  we 
are  not  prepared  to  admit,  and  we  think  our- 
selves standing  upon  the  principles  of  natural 
justice,  upon  the  fundamental  laws  of  every  free 
government,  upon  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  upon  the 
decisions  of  most  respectable  judicial  tribunals, 
in  resisting  such  a  doctrine.  The  statutes  of 
1798  ch  9,  and  of  1801,  ch.  5,  are  not,  therefore 
in  our  judgment,  operative  so  tar  as  to  divest  the 
Episcopal  church  of  the  property  acquired,  pre- 
vious to  the  revolution,  by  purchase  or  by  dona- 
tion." 

Thus  you  see,  Sir,  the  Supreme  Court  pre- 
dicates the  whole  question  as'  to  what  may  be 
done  with  this  description  of  corporation  upon 
the  consent  of  the  corporators  ;  upon  the  ac- 
quietcnice  of  the  corporation  ;  and  if  you  pass  a 
statute  without  obtaining  that  consent,  you  do 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  invite  the  church  to 
a  law  suit. 

There  has  been  a  great  deal  said  here  about 
the  name  of  the  Corporation,  and  inferences 
have  been  drawn,  favorable  to  the  claimants 
from  the  fact  that  the  name  of  the  Corporation 
was  originally  the  "Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  our 
said  City  of  New  York,  in  communion  of  our 
Protestant  Church  of  England  as  now  established 
by  otir  laws."  Now  it  has  already  been  said  that 
no  importance  can  beattached  to  this  title,  because 
it  is  the  mere  designation  of  the  corporation,  and 
is  not  intended  as  a  description  of  those  designed 
to  be  embrace^  within  it,  as  Corporators.  It 
is  very  obvious  that  those  who,  in  the  early  his- 
tory of  the  State  dealt  with  this  question,  never 
supposed  that  this  name  could  be  made  to  im- 
port what  is  now  claimed  for  it  ;  for  if  we  look 
at  the  act  of  1784  we  shall  see  that  its  framers 
understood  this  corporation  to  be  essentially  the 
corporation  of  Trinity  church ;  that  that  church, 
with  its  rector,  wardens,  vestrymen  and  congre- 
gation, and  no  other  church,  was  embraced 
within  the  provisions  of  the  charter  and  the  act 
of  1784.    What  is  the  title  of  the  act' 

It  is  "an  act,  for  making  such  alteration?  in 
the  charter  of  the  corporation  of  TRINITY 
Church,  as  to  render  it  more  conformable  to  the 
constitution  of  the  State."  Here  the  framers  of 
the  act  of  1784  expressed  what  they  considered 
to  be  the  real  character  of  the  corporation,  with- 
out reference  to  its  technical  name.  When  they 
undertake  to  describe  it  they  speak  of  it  as  the 
corporation  of  Trinity  church;  and  not  as  the 
corporation  of  the  Inhabitants  of  New  York  in 
communion  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  And  yet  this  very  question  of  the 
qualifications  of  corporators  seems  to  have  been 
suggested  in  1784,  for  the  act  goes  on  to  declare 
who  shall  be  corporators  and  entitled  as  such  to 
n»e  right  to  vote,  namely,  "all  persons  professing 
themselves  members  of  the  Episcopal  church, 


who  shall  either  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or 
seat  in  the  said  church,  and  shall  regularly  pay  to 
the  support  of  the  said  church,  and  such  others  a« 
shall  in  the  said  church  partake  of  the  holy  sacra- 
ment o/ the  Lord's  Supper,  at  least  once  in  every 
year,  being  inhabitants  of  the  city  and  county  of 
New  York."  These  are  the  persons,  and  these 
only,  who  were  designated  by  the  act  of  1784,  as 
possessing  the  right  to  vote  at  the  elections  of 
Trinity  Church. 

If  we  look  at  the  act  of  1788,  we  will  find 
another  ancient  exposition  of  what  in  early  times 
was  deemed  to  be  the  scope  and  objects  of  this 
charter.  It  is  entitled  "an  act  to  en.ible  the  cor- 
poration of  Trinity  church  in  the  city  of  New 
York  to  assume  the  name  therein  mentioned." 
The  fallacy  of  the  argument  on  the  other  side  re- 
sults from  looking  at  the  mere  name,  given  in 
the  charter  instead  of  the  substance  of  the  thing 
meant.  Senators  shut  their  eyes  to  all  the  pass- 
ages of  the  charter  which  show  so  clearly  that  it 
embraced  only  this  particular  church,  and  its 
Rector,  vestry  and  congregation. 

But  you  say  the  charter  embraces  all  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  inhabitants  of  the  city  then 
and  forever  after — all  the  congregations  of  all 
the  Episcopal  churches,  because  the  name  of  the 
corporation  is  comprehensive.  Well,  if  it  is  so, 
these  people  must  be  all  under  one  rector  which 
is  not  pretended  ;  because  certainly  the  charter 
contemplates  only  one  rector.  Then  what  is  to  be- 
come of  those  who  have  severed  their  relations 
with  the  rector  of  Trinity  church,  and  why  have 
they  severed  those  relations? 

You  see,  Sir,  that  in  1781  and  1788,  the  legis- 
latures of  those  years  entertained  the  very  same 
views  which  I  have  maintained  upon  this  point. 
They  regarded  this  corporation  as  the  corpora- 
tion of  Trinity  church  ;  and  confined  to  that 
church  and  its  chapels;  confined  to  its  rector,  and 
wardens,  and  vestrymen  ;  and  embracing  only 
its  congregation. 

Now,  Sir,  a  great  deal  of  fuss  has  been  made — 
for  I  do  not  think  it  deserves  a  more  respectful 
term  ; — a  deal  of  gratuitous  criticism  has  been 
directed  against  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church,  be- 
cause they  got  the  name  of  the  corporation  chang- 
ed in  the  first  section  of  the  act  of  1814,  which 
provides  as  follows: 
^  "Be  it  enacted  by  the  People  of  the  State  of 
New  York  represented  in  the  Senate  and  Assem- 
bly, That  from  and  after  the  passing  of  this  act, 
the  sale  corporation  of  Trinity  church,  instead 
oftheir  present  name,  shall  take  and  use  the 
name  of  'The  Rector,  Church- Wardens  and 
■Vestrymen  of  Trinity  church,  in  the  city  of  New 
York." 

The  suggestion  is  often  made,  in  and  out  of 
the  legislature,  that  by  means  of  this  new  name, 
Trinity  was  enabled  to  assume  a  new  character. 
There  could  not  well  be  found  a  weaker  argu- 
ment. 

I  have  shown  by  the  acts  of  1784  and  1788 
that  the  corporation  was  in  common  parlance 
called  "the  corporation  of  Trinity  church  ;"  and 
as  Judge  Parker  says  in  his  very  clear  and  cogent 


78 


argument  before  the  committee,  if  it  is  to  be  as- 
sumed that  the  charter  embraces  all  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  city  of  New  York  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  faiih,  simply  on  account  of  its  name, 
then  by  the  same  reasonina;,  the  "Mechanics' 
Bank  in  the  city  of  New  York"  may  be  presum- 
ed to  belong  to  all  the  mechanics,  and  the  "Shoe 
and  Leather  Bank"  to  all  the  shoe  and  leather 
dealers  in  the  city. 

When  the  legislature  of  1814  undertook  to 
give  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church  a  name,  it 
adopted  that  name  which  in  the  common  under- 
standing of  people,  properly  designated  the  thing 
meant  j  and  the  name  thus  given,  I  have  proved 
to  be  precisely  the  one  which  on  all  ordinary  oc- 
casions had  always  been  used  to  describe  the  char- 
ter and  corporation. 

I  might  perhaps  illustrate  the  last  branch 
of  the  argument  yet  more  plainly,  by  going  back 
to  the  grant  of  Queen  Anne,  and  seeing  what 
she  calls  this  corporation,  and  to  whom^  to  what 
(hurch — she  granted  and  confirmed  "  theQueens''s 
farm,"  now  the  great  bulk  of  the  estate.  I  read 
irom  the  Queen's  letter  of  recognition  and  in- 
structions of  April  14,  1714: 

"  Whereas,  our  trusty  and  well  beloved,  the 
Rector^  Church  Wardens^  and  Vestrymen  of 
Trinity  Church  in  our  city  of  New  York,  have 
by  their  humble  address,  represented  unto  us, 
that  our  right  trusty  ami  our  right  well  beloved 
cousin  and  councillor  Edward,  Earl  of  Claren- 
don, our  late  governor  of  our  province  of  New 
York,  did  grant  a  lease  of  our  farm  to  them  for 
seven  years,  under  the  rent  of  sixty  bushels  of 
wheat  yearly  payable  unto  us,  (the  like  having 
been  before  granted  to  Colonel  Benjamin  Fletch- 
er, Governor  under  our  late  royal  brother.  King 
William,  with  the  like  reservation,)  but  as  these 
rents  were  esteemed  a  perquisite  of  the  several 
governors,  for  the  time  being,  the  said  Colonel 
Fletcher,  who  was  a  great  benefactor  and  promo- 
ter of  thi  first  settling  of  THAT  CHURCH, 
did  remit  the  rent  during  his  time  FOR  THAT 
PIOUS  USE,  also  did  the  Earl  of  Clarendon,  so 
much  as  accrued  under  the  lease  granted  in  his 
time. 

#  *  *  *  u  We  X3k\ng  the 
the  premises  into  our  royal  consideration  have 
thought  fit  to  signify  our  will  and  pleasure  unto 
you,  and  accordingly  our  will  and  pleasure  is, 
that  immediately  upon  receipt  hereof,  you  do 
stop  the  prosecution  now  carrying  on  in  our 
court  of  chancery  there  against  the  SAID  COR- 
PORATION, &c." 

Thus,  Sir,  you  find  in  the  very  act  confirming 
to  the  church  the  property  which  is  now  the 
source  af  its  revenues,  the  corporation  is  des- 
cribed precisely  as  it  vas  tubsequently  described 
inlhe  act  of  1814.  Trinity  has  been  denounced 
and  deceit  has  been  attributed  1o  her  for  having 
the  corporate  name  changed  in  that  act.  It  has 
been  charged  that  it  was  a  new  title  invented  by 
the  vestry  of  that  day,  in  order  to  exclude  as 
corporators,  the  congregations  of  the  other  city 
churches;  in  other  words,  that  the  first  section 
of  the  act  of  1814,  was  but  the  pretext  for  enact- 


ing the  second.  And  yet  we  find  that  in  1814, 
she  only  look  the  tame  name  given  to  her  a  hun- 
dred years  before  in  Quetn  Anne''s  grant,  when 
the  largest  portion  '•f  her  estate  was  bestowed  up- 
on her.  I  think.  Sir,  that  is  a  respectable  au- 
thority for  a  name.  I  think  that  when  we  go 
back  to  Queen  Anne's  time  and  find  that  her 
grant  is  to  the  rector,  church  wardens  and  ves- 
trymen of  Trinity  church — we  go  back  about  far 
enough.  Could  you  desire  any  evidence  more 
conclusive  as  to  who  was  included  within  the 
scope  of  the  charter,  than  the  passages  I  have 
read  to  you?  It  does  not  seem  possible  that  a 
mind,  not  biased  against  all  reason,  can  rise 
from  the  perusal  of  that  instrument  without  con- 
ceiling  that  we  are  right. 

Trinity  planting  herself  upon  that  magna 
charta,  stands  upon  a  rock  that  will  endure  for- 
ever. Whatever  we  may  think  of  it  here,  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  will  regard 
it  as  a  bulwark  which  no  legislature  will  be  suf- 
fered to  destroy.  Nothing  is  said  in  that  instru- 
ment about  dividing  up  the  estate  of  Trinity,  as 
the  Senator  from  the  6th  {Mr.  Brooks,)  has  it  in 
his  bill,  among  the  churches  in  the  state  of  New 
York— or  of  the  colony  of  New  York,  as  it  was 
then  called;  there  is  no  provision  for  a  partition 
and  distribution  of  her  funds  between  the  city  and 
country  churches. 

Now  Sir,  when  a  legislature  undertake  to 
override  and  disregard  a  muniment  of  title  like 
that,  I  think  it  becomes  an  occasion  for  display- 
ing a  little  "feeling,"  although  the  Senator 
from  the  22nd  (Mr.  Noxon,)  told  us  the  other 
day  of  his  "surprise,"  that  the  question  should 
excite  "any  feeling."  I  think  any  American 
citizen  having  a  reasonable  pride  in  his  country, 
and  a  reasonable  respect  for  vested  rights,  and 
who  believes  that  in  a  proper  regard  for  private 
rights,  rests  every  hope  of  the  success  of  our  ex- 
periment of  free  government,  might  well  be  ex- 
cused for  displaying  a  little  feeling  at  witnessing 
this  grave  and  deliberate  attempt  to  violate  them. 
For  if  this  grant  is  not  sufficiently  explicit  and 
does  not  mean  what  is  claimed  for  it,  what  can 
be  deemed  sure?  What  man  is  safe  under  his 
own  roof  and  by  his  own  fireside?  Where,  un- 
der our  laws  is  there  to  be  found  security  in  any 
possession? 

The  amazement  that  has  been  expressed  at 
the  exhibition  of  "feeling"  on  the  part  of  Trinity 
and  her  friends,  remind  me  of  an  incident  which 
occurred  a  few  years  ago  in  New  York.  We 
had  a  few  philosophers  among  us  at  that  time, 
who  had  a  notion  of  limiting  the  extent  of  the 
possessions  of  every  citizen;  they  proposed  to  fix 
bounds  beyond  which  a  man's  acquisitions  should 
not  go:  they  undertook  also  to  provide  for  the 
equal  distribution  of  the  excess;  this  programme 
was  seriously  proposed  to  a  member  of  the  gen- 
eral committee  of  the  Democratic  party,  with  a 
request  that  it  might  be  introduced  at  Tammany 
Hall.  My  friend,  after  hearing  the  parties,  said, 
"Well,  you  propose  a  fair  division;  but  a  thing 
like  this  may  be  expected  to  occasion  a  good  de« 
of  dissatisfaction.    Now,  if  you  will  add  to  your 


79 


platform  that  there  shall  be  no  grumbling  on  the 
part  of  those  who  under  its  operation  may  lose 
their  property,  then,  I  think,  it  will  go!" 

The  second  section  of  the  act  of  1814  goes  on 
to  define  those  who  shall  have  the  right  to  vote 
in  the  corporation.  You  would  suppose,  while 
listening  to  the  denunciations  that  have  been 
heaped  on  Trinity  by  her  assailants;  and  while 
hearing  the  honorable  senator  from  the  22d  (Mr. 
Noxon)  hold  Trinity  upas  a  "close  corporation," 
■whose  most  conspicuous  desire  was  to  keep  all 
the  world  out;  you  would  suppose  this  vestry 
were  a  group  of  avaricious,  grasping,  greedy 
men,  eager  to  usurp  power  not  belonging  to  them, 
and  desirous  of  excluding  every  one  they  could 
from  their  church.  But,  sir,  look  at  the  accusa- 
tion, and  then  look  at  the  truth,  as  seen  in  the 
act  of  1814.  What  is  necessary  under  that  law 
in  order  to  obtain  the  right  to  vote?  Is  the  door 
of  the  church  guarded  by  a  roaring  lion,  or  by 
threatening  artillery?  Is  the  man  who  would 
approach  the  ballot  box.  menaced  by  any  fearful 
danger?  Let  us  judge  from  the  words  of  the 
second  section  of  the  act: 

"And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  all  male 
persons  of  full  age,  who,  for  the  space  of  one 
year  preceding  any  election,  shall  have  been 
membert  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity  church 
aforesaid,  or  of  any  of  the  chapels  belonging  to 
the  same,  and  forming  part  of  the  same  religious 
corporations,  u-ho  shall  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a 
piw  or  seat  in  Trinity  church,  or  in  any  of  the 
said  chapels,  or  have  partaken  of  the  holy  commu- 
nion /herein  within  the  taid  year,  and  no  other 
persons,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  an- 
nual elections  for  the  church-wardens  and  vestry- 
men of  the  said  corporation." 

Well,  what  less  would  you  have?  Can  the 
human  mind  conceive  of  any  established  reli- 
gious corporation,  guarded  by  any  restrictions  at 
all,  where  the  qualifications  are  milder,  fairer, 
more  reasonable,  and  more  in  consonance  with 
the  spirit  that  should  animate  such  institutions, 
than  those  imposed  by  this  section?  Let  us  now 
see  how  you  would  have  it  read:  Be  it  enacted, 
4rc.,  &c.,  That  '"all  persons  who  for  one  year 
shall  have  been  members  of  Trinity  church  or 
any  of  her  chapels,  or  of  any  other  church  or 
chapel,  and  forming  part  of  the  same,  or  of  any 
other,  religious  corporation,  and  who  shall  hold, 
occupy  or  enjoy  a  seat  or  pew  in  Trinity  church 
or  any  of  her  chapels,  or  in  any  other  church  or 
chapel,  and  who  shall  have  partaken  of  the  holy 
communion  therein  or  anywhere  else  within  the 
year  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  annual  elec- 
tions for  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church."  And 
thus  you  would  confer  upon  strangers  the  right 
to  choose  the  rector  of  a  church  as  against  its 
congregation.  A  congregation  shall  not  say  who 
shall  administer  the  holy  communion  at  its  "altar  I 
Nor  who  shall  have  charge  of  its  grave-yards 
and  control  and  manage  its  estate.  And  would 
this  be  justice?  No,  sir;  no  more  than  it  would 
be  justice  to  invade  the  family  circle  and  deny 
the  natural  right  of  the  father  to  be  the  chief  of 
his  own  household.    And  let  me  assure  you  it  is 


as  dangerous  to  impair  the  right  of  self-government 
in  a  church,  as  it  would  be  to  disturb  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Family.  The  two  combined — the 
Church  and  the  Family — are  the  basis  of  social 
order;  liberty  can  not  long  exist  where  power  is 
rudely  employed  against  either. 

The  majority  in  this  legislature,  in  their  ea- 
gerness to  grasp  patronage  and  power,  may 
usurp  the  government  of  cities;  they  may  de- 
pose high  municipal  officers  who  have  been  elect- 
ed by  the  people;  but  they  will  learn  that  a 
State  whose  government  is  based  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  entire  freedom  of  religious  worship 
among  all  her  citizens,  will  not  permit  a  set  of 
political  adventurers  to  invade  a  church,  and 
dictate  the  form  and  method  of  its  internal  gov- 
ernment, and  say  who  shall  take  part  in  its  elec- 
tions, and  who  shall  minister  at  its  altar. 

There  is  a  provision  in  the  charter,  Sir,  which 
I  think  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  will  find  it 
difficult  to  explain  or  to  reconcile  v.'ith  their  po- 
sition; I  allude  to  that  provision  which  author- 
izes those  to  whom  the  charter  is  given,  and 
their  successors,  to  admit  others  ''of  our  liege 
subjects,"  Episcopal  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
New  York,  into  the  corporation  as  corporators. 
Now,  if  all  the  Protestant  Episcopalians  in  the 
city,  were,  as  is  contended,  corporators  under 
the  charter,  how  would  it  be  possible  to  let  in 
any  more?  If  all  possessed  the  right  of  corpora- 
tors under  the  original  instrument,  it  was  cer- 
tainly unnecessary  to  provide  for  any  extension 
of  that  right.  This  clause,  among  others,  proves 
that  a  limited  corporation  was  created;  a  corpor- 
ation limited  to  the  rector  and  congregation  of 
Trinity  church;  to  those  who  should  hold  an 
ecclesiastical  relation  to  that  rector,  in  his  church 
or  in  the  chapels  under  his  control  and  minis- 
tration. 

In  England,  a  parish,  besides  an  ecclesias- 
tical, has  a  geographical,  as  well  as  a  po- 
litical sense.  But  in  the  state  of  New  York, 
there  is  no  sense  in  which  you  can  apply 
the  Word  "parish,"  except  to  the  Rector, 
church  wardens  and  vestry  of  some  particular 
church  and  its  chapels;  there  is  no  proper  sense 
in  which  we  can  interpret  the  meaning  of '■  the 
parish  of  Trinity,"  except  as  a  designation  of 
the  congregation  of  Trinity  and  its  chapels — 
the  religious  body  which  recognize  and  acknowl- 
edge the  Rev.  Dr.  Berrian  as  their  Rector.  This 
is  the  American  idea  of  a  "  parish."  We  have 
no  such  political  division  of  our  territory  as 

parishes."  We  have  towns,  and  counties,  and 
cities  and  villages;  the  word  "  parish"  with  us 
does  not  convey  the  notion  of  space.  It  simply 
means  the  congregation  of  a  church,  and 
the  Rector  and  parish  officers  who  preside  over 
them. 

Now,  what  is  it  that  you  propose  to  do?  To 
force  into  this  religious  association  two  or  three 
thousand  people  who  do  not  belong  to  it;  who 
never  hear  its  Rector  preach;  who  never  receive 
the  communion  at  its  altar.  Sir,  this  is  to  de- 
stroy the  independence  of  the  congregation,  and 
to  erase  every  vestige  that  remains  of  the  or- 


80 


gariization  called  a  "  parish  "  as  it  exists  in  this 
country. 

One  of  the  fundamental  errors  lying  at  the  root 
of  this  controversy  is  the  idea  that  any 
part  of  the  property  possessed  by  Trinity  church 
is  held  in  trust.  What  she  possesses,  she  pos- 
sesses as  her  own.  Those  Senators  who  main- 
tain that  her  estate  is  held  in  trust,  will  be  puz- 
zled to  reconcile  the  contradictions  in  their 
different  theories  as  to  the  bounds  of  that  trust. 
Those  members  of  the  other  city  churches  who 
have  heretofore  asserted  rights  as  corporators 
of  Trinity  have  argued  that  the  property  was 
given  in  trust  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  city 
of  New  York,  in  communion  with  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  church.  The  two  or  three  persons 
who  claimed  the  right  to  vote  in  IS  12,  and  those 
who  applied  to  the  legislature  in  1846,  claimed 
this,  and  no  more.  But  whence  do  you  derive 
the  new  doctrine  that  the  trust  is  not  limited  to 
the  city,  but  comprehends  the  churches  through- 
out the  stale?  And  unless  that  is  the  nature  of 
the  trust,  what  power  have  you  to  direct  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  funds  for  the  advancement  "  of 
religion  and  religious  education  in  the  state  of 
New  York?" 

Again,  if  any  part  of  the  estate  is  held  in  trust, 
then  all  is  held  in  trust  because  all  is  held  by  the 
same  title;  why  then  give  to  Trinity  the  church 
and  chapels  she  now  occupies,  the  cemeteries 
she  possesses,  the  lands  which  are  reserved  to 
her  in  the  bill  of  the  Senator  from  the  6th? 
If  the  estate  is  held  in  trust  for  the  city  and 
state,  these  parcels  are  so  held;  and  so,  upon 
your  own  reasoning,  you  have  no  right  to  con- 
cede to  her  the  absolute  ownership  and  control 
of  any  portion  of  the  estate? 

By  what  power  do  you  draw  the  line  and  say, 
'•  thus  much  you  have  in  trust,  and  thus  much 
you  own  absolutely?"  Upon  what  basis  do  you 
draw  this  distinction''  Those  who  now  claim  to 
participate  in  the  whole,  may  well  deny  the  right 
of  the  legislature  to  deprive  them  of  any  part. 
The  church  holds  all  her  property  by  the  same 
tenure.  She  either  is  entitled  to  all  or  none. 
Then  Sir,  either  take  the  whole  or  none.  Make 
no  partition  of  her  estate.  It  either  belongs  to 
her,  or  it  does  not  belong  to  her.  If  it  does  not, 
the  vestry  do  not  desire  to  keep  it.  But  if  it 
does,  then  they  do  desire  to  keep  it,  and  they 
mean  to  keep  it  while  there  are  courts  in  the 
land,  to  maintain  the  law  of  the  land! 

It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  corporation 
of  Trinity  church,  is  distinct  from  the  congrega- 
tion. The  congregation  is  the  soul  of  a  religious 
corporation  in  this  country.  It  is  the  basis  of  an 
ecclesiastical  corporation,  as  it  is  of  a  parish;  a 
church  corporation  consists  of  a  congregation  and 
its  ecclesiastical  representatives,  be  they  rector, 
church  wardens  and  vestrymen,  or  such  other 
oificers  as  the  rule  and  discipline  of  the  church 
may  prescribe.  That  is  the  whole  of  a  religious 
corporation,  as  it  is  of  a  parish,  and  so,  when 
you  invade  a  religious  corporation  and  interfere 
with  its  landed  possessions,  you  attack  the  con- 
gregation of  that  church;  you  cross  its  threshold, 


you  enter  its  doors — you  intrude  into  its  aisles — 
you  put  your  profane  hand  upon  its  altar!  You 
commit  an  act  of  sacrilege  as  much  as  if  you  rob- 
bed that  altar  of  its  gold  and  silver.  The  magni- 
tuile  of  the  plunder  does  not  serve  to  dignify  the 
act.  You  have  no  more  right  to  take  half  of  the 
Queen's  Farm,  than  you  have  to  pillage  the 
baptismal  font.  The  church  holds  both  by  the 
same  title,  and  you  have  no  better  right  to  the 
one,  than  to  the  other. 

Now  Sir,  if  there  is  any  one  essential  element 
in  the  organization  of  every  church,  Methodist, 
Presbyterian,  Episcopal,  Catholic  or  Congrega- 
tional; if  there  is  any  fundamental  characteristic 
common  to  all  churches,  it  is  this — that  only 
those  who  go  to  a  church,  who  worship  in  it, 
who  hold  and  enjoy  a  pew  in  it,  have  the  right 
to  direct  and  control  its  temporal  menasement. 
That  is  a  universal  truth.  It  is  true  of  every 
church,  no  matter  what  its  denomination  or 
where  its  location.  And  it  is  just  this  universal 
fact  which  you  ignore,  when  you  say  to  the  con- 
gregations of  Grace  church,  of  Ascension,  and 
of  the  other  churches  independent  of  Trinity,  "we 
will  make  an  exception  in  your  favor  against 
the  rules  which  have  guided  and  governed  all 
church  government  in  all  time,  and  allow  you 
an  equal  share  in  the  control  of  a  church  to 
which  you  do  not  belong:  whose  rector  you 
never  hear  preach,  and  at  whose  altar  you  never 
kneel." 

How  is  it  possible.  Sir,  if  a  congregation  has 
any  material  relation  to  the  corporation,  for  a 
man  to  be  of  the  corporation,  unless  he  is  of  the 
congregation'?  The  one  follows  of  necessity  from 
the  other,  and  is  based  on  the  best  of  all  possible 
reasons.  Every  congregation  must  have  an  ad- 
equate, proper,  salutary  check  upon  the  admis- 
sion of  new  members  into  the  main  body;  just  as 
the  constitution  wisely  gives  to  this  Senate  the 
power  to  judge  of  the  eligibility  of  those  who  sit 
around  this  circle  But  this  essential  principle 
you  break  down  when  you  admit  the  members  of 
other  congregations  to  interfere  in  the  control 
and  management  of  a  church  to  which  they  do 
not  belong. 

I  must  say  that  my  colleagues  from  the  6th 
(Mr.  Brooks),  and  from  the  5th  (Mr.  Spencer), 
deserve  credit  at  least  for  their  rare  ingenuity,  in 
discovering  a  plan  by  which  a  person  can  belong 
to  two — yes,  to  fifty  churches  at  the  same  time. 
But  why  not  be  as  liberal  to  I'rinity  as  you  are 
to  the  other  churches  of  New  York'  You  have 
allowed  these  fifty  and  more  churches  a  share  in 
the  government  of '.Trinity;  then  why  not  allow 
Trinity  also  to  participate  in  the  control  of  the 
others?  Why  not?  You  certainly  would  be  con- 
sistent with  yourselves,  at  least,  in  so  doing.  A 
man  could  then  belong  to  Trinity  and  Grace 
church,  and  forty  or  fifty  other  churches,  in  the 
same  way  that  one  can  join  all  the  clubs  of 
London.  If  you  divest  the  church  of  the  unity 
that  belongs  to  it;  if  your  notion  of  a  church  is 
like  the  Englishrnan's  notion  of  a  club,  where 
you  can  do  as  you  like — read  the  Bible  or  the 
newspaper — takediimeror  play  a  rubber  at  whist, 


81 


then  I  can  see  that  there  is  ^n  ohject  in  being  a 
member  of  forty  or  fifty  churches  al  the  same 
time.  But  on  any  other  hypothesis — unless  a 
church  is  like  a  debating  society  or  a  scientific 
association,  I  must  confess  I  see  an  inconi;ruity  in 
a  communicant  voting  in  more  than  one  church, 
or  belonging  to  more  than  one  congregation. 
According  to  my  old  fashioned  notions,  it  seems 
just  as  repugnant  to  Christianity  for  a  man  to 
beloiii;  to  two  cliurches,  as  to  have  two  wives.  I 
have  no  doubt  that  in  the  Mormon  church,  a 
"saint"  may  belong  to  as  many  churches  as  he 
may  have  wives,  according  to  that  modern  dis- 
pensation ! 

Now,  sir,  if  Trinity  possessed  separate  and 
detached  estates,  yielding  incomes  which  were 
susceptible  of  subdivision;  if  you  could  say  this 
property  was  acquired  at  such  a  time,  for  such 
purposes,  to  be  administered  in  such  a  way;  and 
that  was  acquired  at  some  other  time,  for  some 
other  purpose,  then  the  partition  you  propose 
might  possibly  be  reconciled  with  justice.  But 
the  estate,  the  church,  and  the  corporation  form 
a  unit.  There  is  Unity  throughout — indivisible, 
inseparable  Unity — embracingf  the  rector,  the 
vestry,  the  congregation  and  the  estate;  and  you 
can  no  more  separate  this  estate  from  the  corpo- 
ration than  you  can  take  away  from  it  the  rector, 
the  wardens  or  the  congregation.  It  is  all  one. 
Each  is  a  constituent  part  of  the  unit,  but  it  is  a 
unit  always. 

This  view  of  the  impossibility  of  belonging  to 
more  than  one  church  at  one  time  is  not  new. 
It  is  as  old  as  church  government  But  it  is  also 
the  law  of  New  York.  Let  us  read  the  law  of 
1801,  as  confirmed  in  1S19,  and  see  what  it  pro- 
vides : 

"Be  it  enacted  by  the  People  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  represented  in  Senate  and  Assembly, 
That  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  male  persons,  of 
full  age.  belonging  to  any  church,  congregation 
or  religious  society,  in  which  divine  worship 
shall  be  celebrated  according  to  the  rites  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  this  state,  and 
not  already  incorporated  at  any  time  to  meet  for 
the  purpose  of  incorporating  themselves,  and  of 
electing  church  wardens  and  vestrymen,  and  to 
proceed  to  make  such  election,  and  to  effect  such 
incorporation  in  like  manner  as  by  the  first  sec- 
tion of  the  act  hereby  amended,  is  authorized  to 
be  done  by  persons  possessing  the  qualifications 
therein  specified  :  Provided,  That  no  person  not 
posiessing  those  quahficalio ns  shall  be  permitted 
to  vote  at  any  subsequent  election  of  church  war- 
dens and  vestrymen." 

That  is  the  written  law  of  New  York,  and 
has  been  for  forty  years  past.  It  was  the  un- 
written law  always  and  everywhere,  and  the  act 
I  have  read  is  only  the  Common  Sense  of  Man- 
kind, embodied  into  a  statute,  and  made  opera- 
tive as  a  law.  The  state  of  New  York  has  said,  j 
in  the  acts  of  1801  and  1819,  that  a  man  can  not 
enter  a  new  congregation  or  corporation  until  he 
secedes  from  that  to  which  %e  already  belongs ; 
and  so  when  you  pass  a  law  allowing  one  con- 
gregation to  acquire  control  in  another,  you  pass  a 


law  inconsistent  with  existing  statates,  and  you 
must  repeal  the  one  before  the  other  can  become 
operative. 

When  Dives  moves  up  town;  when  he  looks 
back  and  sees  none  but  the  poor  remaining  in 
the  lower  parts  of  the  city;  when  nothing  but 
stalwart  laborers  and  suffering  emigrants  meet 
his  eye,  and  visions  of  ship  fever  float  before 
him;  when  he  beholds  only  Lazarus  and  his 
companions  hanging  about  the  doors  of  Trinity, 
it  is  under  the  law  of  1801  and  1819  that  he 
ceases  to  be  a  corporator  of  Trinity;  builds  a 
new  church,  becomes  a  member  of  a  new  con- 
gregation, puts  himself  in  charge  of  a  new  Rec- 
tor, new  wardens  and  new  vestrymen,  and 
severs  himself  entirely  from  Trinity  parish. 
And,  sir,  he  must  remain  satisfied  with  his  com- 
fortal>le  change  of  position  until  he  survives  his 
repugnance  to  driving  down  Broadway  to  Trin- 
ity, to  worship  beneath  her  majestic  arches,  be- 
side some  of  my  poor  constituents,  where  he 
would  be  admonished  of  that  equality  of  all  men 
before  God  to  which  no  good  Christian  can  ob- 
ject. Until  he  does  this,  sir,  he  can  not  exercise 
the  rights  of  a  corporator  of  Trinity  church.  But 
whenever  he  will  condescend  to  return  to  that 
unfashionable  temple  then  will  he  become  once 
more  invested  with  all  the  privileges  and  powers 
of  a  corporator,  without  legislative  interference, 
without  law  suits,  simply  by  participating  in 
the  ministrations  of  Trinity  church. 

But,  sir,  the  strange  idea  of  allowing  mem- 
bers of  a  congregation  to  vote  in  a  church  to 
which  they  do  not  belong,  does  not  approach  the 
absurd  proposition  of  allowing  other  corpora- 
tions— other  churches,  to  vote  down  a  rival  con- 
gregation and  thereby  get  possession  of  its  pro- 
perty. The  hill  reported  from  the  select  com- 
mittee by  my  colleague  from  the  5th  (Mr. 
Spencer),  allows  all  the  individu  il  members  ol 
the  oiher  Episcopal  churches — three  or  four 
thousand  strong — to  come  to  the  elections  in 
Trinity  church,  and  outvote  its  comparatively 
feeble  congregation, — appoint  its  Rector,  minis- 
ters and  vestry  and  take  its  money.  But  the  hill 
offered  by  my  colleague  from  the  6lh  (Mr. 
Brooks),  attains  its  end  in  a  yet  more  extraordi- 
nary style.  He  would  give  the  right  of  suffrage 
to  the  corporations,  in  lieu  of  the  individual  mem- 
bers of  them.  He  gives  to  half  a  hundred  or  more 
religious  corporations,  each  a  vote  in  controlling 
the  affairs  of  another  corporation.  Each  one  of 
these  churches,  entirely  independent  of  each 
other  with  respect  to  its  own  affairs,  is  to  be  al- 
lowed a  share  in  the  government  of  the  corpora- 
tion of  Trinity  church. 

What  would  your  practical  business  men  say 
to  a  bill  brought  in  here  to  give  to  forty  rail 
road  corporations  in  the  state,  a  voice  as  corpor- 
ations, in  the  control  of  the  Central  Rail  Road? 
That  is  a  large  corporation,  and  so  is  Trinity 
church.  That  possesses  a  vast  amount  of  money, 
and  so  does  Trinity  church.  A  great  many  peo- 
ple who  are  not  in  that  corporation,  grumble 
about  it,  as  do  a  great  many  who  are  outside  ot 
Trinity.    A  number  of  persons  are  anxious  to 


11 


82 


have  a  hand  in  the  managennent  in  this  colossal 
rail  road  company,  and  quite  a  number  are  am- 
bitious of  taking  part  in  the  control  of  Trinity 
church.  Now,  you  have  just  as  much  power  to 
give  tlie  control  uf  the  Central  Rail  Road  to  these 
"outsiders,"  as  you  have  to  give  to  the  congre- 
gations of  other  churches  the  management  of  the 
affairs  of  Trinity.  You  have,  indeed,  more  right; 
for  in  the  one  case  you  have  reserved  certain  au- 
thority over  the  corporation  to  alter,  amend  or 
repeal  its  charter,  which  povi'er  in  the  other  case 
has  not  been  reserved. 

What  would  be  thought  of  your  sanity  if  your 
rail  road  committee  should  report  a  bill  authoriz- 
ing these  other  rail  roads  to  send  delegates  to 
a  rail  road  congress  at  Albany  to  choose  one-half 
of  the  directors  of  the  Central  Rail  Road  board? 
This  is  in  reality  what  you  now  propose,  applied 
to  a  church.  And  the  same  holds  good  with 
respect  to  a  bank.  You  might  with  just  as 
much  propriety  select  some  great  city  bank,  with 
too  much  mor.ey  in  its  vaults,  and  bleed  it  by 
admitting  forty  or  fifly  other  banks  to  an  equal 
share  in  selecting  its  board  of  directors. 

Is  there  a  Senator  here  who  does  not  know 
that  <he  real,  naked,  undisguised  reason  for  this 
attack  upon  Trinity,  is  the  magnitude  of  her 
possessions'?  Let  us  suppose  that  Trinity  church, 
instead  of  possessing  an  estate  worth  millions, 
had  only  ten  thousand  dollars  worth  of  property, 
and  a  small  village  church  in  which  a  poor  and 
worthy  congregation  worshipped;  there  is  not  a 
man  living  who  would  suffer  a  crowd  of  opulent 
churches  to  step  in  and  control  its  management 
and  appropriate  its  humble  estate.  Why,  Sir, 
our  sanction  of  such  an  act  would  justify  the  tak- 
ing up  of  arms;  and  every  man  who  worshipped 
under  a  thatched  roof,  instead  of  a  gilded  one, 
would  feel  his  own  rights  invaded,  and  would 
make  common  cause  with  the  oppressed. 

But  whilst  you  meditate  this  wrong  against 
Trinity  because  she  is  possessed  of  wealth,  and 
fancy  you  are  secure  in  that  general  prejudice 
which  looks  with  an  envious  and  sinister  eye  on 
the  rich — will  you  not  remember,  that  accident 
has  made  her  rich?  Do  you  suppose  that  Wil- 
liam, or  Anne,  or  Clarendon,  ever  dreamed  when 
they  bestowed  this  estate  upon  Trinity,  that  it 
would  be  worth  millions?  Do  you  suppose  that 
when  they  gave  her  that  miserable  patch  of  land 
worth  £50  a  year,  that  they  imagined  they  were 
giving  her  enough  to  endow  hfty  churches  in 
the  city  and  two  hundred  churches  in  the 
interior?  No;  but  they  believed  it  would 
yield  enough  to  support  one  Rector,  for  one  con- 
gregation, in  one  parish;  and  that  is  all  they 
dreamed  would  ever  come  of  it.  In  the  times  of 
William,  and  Anne,  no  man  ever  supposed,  in  his 
wildest  fancy,  that  New  York  would  attain  its 
present  opulence  and  magnitude.  And  yet  you 
are  arguing  this  case  on  the  supposition  that  the 
donors  foresaw  the  future  grandeur  of  New  York 
and  gave  this  property,  in  trust,  for  the  support 
of  fifty  '•hurches  that  would  be  erected  in  the 
city  in  the  course  of  time;  and  for  two  hundred 
more  churches  to  be  erected  in  what  was  then 


the  unper.etrated,  and  apparently  impenetrable 
wilderness,  spreading  from  the  lakes  to  the 
ocean.  And  it  is  upon  this  preposterous  suppo- 
sition that  Senators  seek  to  justify  the  seizure 
and  partition  of  this  estate. 

The  bill  of  my  colleague  from  the  6th  (Mr. 
Brooks),  leaves  to  Trinity  church,  as  I  have 
said,  the  privilege  of  baptizing,  of  administer- 
ing the  communion,  of  marrying,  of  burying  the 
dead,  of  handing  round  the  plate  and  disbursing 
the  charitable  collections  in  her  own  congrega- 
tion. It  reserves  to  her  all  her  religious  avocations, 
and  kindly  relieves  her  of  all  her  surplus  estate, 
to  transfer  it  to  tne  uptown,  sweet-scented,  and 
highly-perfumed  Christians,  who,  from  having 
accumulated  so  much  property  of  their  own, 
have  acquired  also  a  marvelous  facility  in  taking 
care  of  the  property  of  others.  Well,  this  may 
be  all  fair  enough  according  to  the  views  of  the 
Senators  who  propose  and  uphold  it,  but  I  would 
like  to  be  informed,  if  you  take  one  half  of  the 
property  now,  how  long  it  will  be  before  the 
other  half  will  follow?  It  will  be  said,  "the 
church  and  chapels  are  occupied  now  alrrost 
entirely  by  the  poor,  and  only  a  handful  of  the 
old  residents  remain ;  give  us  another  law  au- 
thorizing the  sale  of  the  church  buildings  and 
the  valuable  grounds  on  which  they  stand,  and 
the  appropriation  of  the  proceeds  by  these 
gentlemen  who  are  so  ready  to  spend  what 
does  not  belon*  to  them  for  the  advancement 
of  the  interests  of  the  church?  Let  us  sell  St. 
Paul's  and  put  stores  on  its  site;  we  can  build 
for  the  congregation — quite  an  unfashionable  set 
of  people — a  ten  thousand  dollar  church  in  a 
cheap  corner.  It  will  be  all  the  same  to  them, 
and  will  certainly  pay  us  better."  Thus  will  it 
be  Sir,  if  we  yield  one  inch  of  ground  to  these 
demands.    There  will  be  no  limit  afterwards. 

When  I  find  that  a  tew  thousand  dollars 
for  each,  will  induce  an  organization  of  churches 
to  grasp  a  portion  of  this  sacred  estate,  I  am  not 
one  to  believe  that  they  will  hesitate  long  about 
selling  the  grave  yards  on  Broadway  when  mil- 
lions stimulate  the  temptation. 

There  is  a  class  of  persons  engaged  in  this 
scheme  to  obtain  control  of  the  estates  of  Trinity, 
who  expect  through  it  to  enable  "  low 
church"  to  obtain  an  advantage  over  "high 
church."  They  say  to  themselves,  "  Trinity 
church  is  rich,  she  is  able  to  give  liberally — to 
make  her  Christianity  practically  and  beneficially 
felt.  Our  programme,  to  be  sure,  is  highly  spi- 
ritual, but  it  is  cold,  statuesque,  abstract.  But  the 
ministration  of  Trinity  is  warm;  it  is  real;  it  is 
human.  She  seeks  out  the  poor,  the  sick,  the 
ignorant,  the  helpless.  She  is  daily  and  hourly 
fulfilling  the  offices  of  the  good  Samaritan.  We 
can  not  do  these  things,  because  we  do  not  wish 
to  encourase  the  revival  of  those  medieval  high 
church  customs;  and  besides,  to  enable  us  to  im- 
itate her  example,  we  should  have  to  put  our 
hands  in  our  own,  pockets.  We  might  do  so, 
however,  could  we  thrust  our  arms  into  the 
treasury  of  Trinity." 

This  measure  was  at  first  brought  forward, 


83 


under  tbe  pretext  of  saving  the  estate  from  waste 
and  extravagance ;  but  all  the  rumors  about  finan- 
cial mismanagement  are  now  silenced  by  the  tes- 
timony reluclantly  spread  before  the  Senate  by 
the  committee,  and  which  was  recently  taken 
here  in  Albany. 

The  rector,  ministers,  wardens  and  vestry 
have  been  so  triumphantly  vindicated  by  the  tes- 
timony that  it  is  absurd  now  to  put  this  measure 
npon  the  ground  of  improper  or  unwise  manage- 
ment of  the  fun<ls  by  the  vestry,  or  of  any  un- 
faithfulness in  the  discharge  of  their  trust  by  the 
officers  or  ministers  of  the  pa  rish.  Will  you,  then, 
sitting  in  this  Senate  Chamber,  allow  your 
power  to  be  insidiously  invoked  to  give  to  one 
class  of  opinions  in  a  church  an  advantage  over 
another?  Have  you  so  mistaken  the  principle  of 
religious  freedom,  so  long  cherished  in  this  com- 
monwealth, as  to  allow  this  invasion  of  the  sa- 
cred circle  which  the  constitution  and  the  laws 
have  drawn  around  every  church  in  the  land? 

■'The  sober  people  of  America  are  weary 
of  the  fluctuating  policy  which  has  directed 
the  public  councils.  They  have  seen  with 
regret  and  with  indignation,  that  sudden  chanjes 
and  legislative  interferences,  in  cases  affecting 
personal  rights,  become  jobs  in  the  hands  of  en- 
terprising and  influential  speculators;  and  snares 
to  the  more  industrious  and  less  informed  part 
of  the  community.  They  have  seen,  too,  that 
one  legislative  interferen'-e  is  bat  the  link  of  a 
long  chain  of  repetitions;  every  subsequent  in- 
terference being  naturally  produced  by  the  eflects 
of  the  preceding.'  " — Letters  of  Publius,  or  The 
Federalitt,  {ffo.  44,  by  Mr.  Madison). 

*****        *  # 

Senators,  you  have  seen  that  history  has  pro- 
nounced a  severe  judgment  upon  the  attempt  of 
James  the  second,  to  interfere  with  the  govern- 
ment of  a  religious  corporation.  It  was  one  of 
the  proofs  of  his  disregard  of  vested  rights  which 
led  to  the  revolution  that  drove  him  from  his 
throne.  This  example  ought  to  be  instructive  to 
you.  The  volume  of  history  is  not  yet  closed. 
You  will  have  your  historian.  Your  transac- 
tions will  occupy  a  page  in  the  history  of  your 
limes. 

The  enactment  of  this  law  will  entitle  you  to 
be  chronicled  as  the  first  Senate  in  the  history  of 
the  state, that  has  trampled  upon  the  vested  consti- 
tutional rights  of  its  citizens  and  despoiled  a  religi- 
ous corporation  of  her  estate.  Sir,  history  will  not 
fail  to  take  notice  of  this  instance.  Those  who 
do  the  deed,  will  go  down  the  stream  of  time 
without  honor,  and  on  their  foreheads  will  hs 
branded  the  initial  letters  descriptive  of  the 
act.  History,  with  her  calm  eye  and  ever  ready 
pen  is  looking  down  upon  you  now,  and  will  in- 
scribe you  on  her  tablets  as  either  honored  or 
disgraced,  as  you  shall  stand  the  test  of  this 
issue.  The  church  may  be  on  trial  now,  and 
here;  but  in  the  presence  of  mankind,  and  of  fu- 
ture ages  the  state  will  be  on  trial  hereafter, — 
this  noble  state,  whose  higi  trusts,  and  func- 
tions, and  power,  you  now  hold  and  e.xercise.  The 
church  may  suffer  and  fall  to-day;  but  you,  in 


the  estimation  of  all  good  men,  will  fall  for 
evjr. 

This  is  a  cause  beyond  our  jurisdiction  and  oit 
of  our  Legislative  control ;  but  if  you  are  resol  "el 
to  usurp  jurisdiction,  you  are  at  least  boun  !  to 
dedide  it  upon  your  oaths,  a~.cording  to  tke  ■  iw 
of  Ihe  land.  And  if  you  do  n^t  understand  waat 
the  law  is,  it  is  your  duty  to  fi.id  out  what  it  is, 
before  you  decide  between  two  rival  claimantj  of 
priv-ate  property. 

What  is  m^ant  by  the  law  of  the  land? — 
"Are  then  these  acts  of  the  legislature,  which 
effect  only  particular  persons  and  their  particular 
privileges,  laws  of  the  land?  Let  this  question 
be  answered  by  the  text  of  Blackstone:  'And 
first,  it  (i.  e.  law)  is  a  rule:  not  a  transient  sud- 
den order  from  a  superior,  to,  or  concerning,  a 
particular  person;  but  somethins  permanent, 
uniform,  and  universal.  Therefore,  a  particular 
act  of  the  legislature  to  confiscate  the  goods  of 
Titius,  or  to  attaint  him  of  high  treason,  does  not 
enter  in'o  the  idea  of  a  municipal  law:  for  the 
operation  of  this  act  is  spent  upon  Titius  only, 
and  has  no  relation  to  the  community  in  general; 
it  is  rather  a  sentence  than  a  law.' — I  Bl.  Com. 
44.  Lord  Coke  is  equally  decisive  and  emphatic. 
Citing  and  commenting  on  the  celebrated  29th 
chap.  o{  Migna  Charta,  he  says,  '  no  man  shall 
be  disseized,  §-c.  unless  it  be  the  lawful  judg- 
ment, that  is,  verdict  of  equals,  or  by  the  law 
of  the  land,  that  is  (to  speak  it  once  for  all),  by 
the  due  course  and  process  of  law.'' — Co.  Ins.  46. 
Have  the  plaintiffs  lost  their  franchises  by  '  due 
course  and  process  of  law''  On  the  contrary, 
are  not  these  acts  '  particular  acts  of  the  legisla- 
ture, which  have  no  relation  to  the  community 
in  general,  which  are  rather  sentences  than 
laws?'  By  the  law  of  the  land  is  most  clearly 
intended  the  general  law;  a  law,  which  hears 
before  it  condemns;  which  proceeds  upon  in- 
quiry, and  renders  judgment  only  after  trial. 
The  meaning  is,  that  every  citizen  shall  hold  his 
lite,  liberty,  property,  and  immunities,  under  the 
protection  of  the  general  rules  which  govern  so- 
ciety. Every  thing  which  may  pass  under  the 
form  of  an  enactment,  is  not,  therefore  to  be 
considered  the  law  of  the  land.  If  this  were  «o 
acts  of  attainder,  bills  of  pains  and  penalties,  acts 
of  confiscation,  acts  of  reversing  judgments,  and 
acts  directly  transferring  one  man's  estate  to 
another,  legislative  judgments,  decrees,  and  for- 
feitures, in  all  possible  forms,  would  be  the  law 
of  the  land.  Such  a  strange  construction  would 
render  constitutional  provisions  of  the  highest 
importance  completely  inoperative  and  void.  It 
would  tend  directly  to  establish  the  union  of  all 
powers  in  the  legislature.  There  would  be  no 
general  permanent  law  for  courts  to  administer 
or  for  men  to  live  under.  The  administration  of 
justice  would  be  an  empty  form,  an  idle  cere- 
mony. Judges  would  sit  to  execute  legislative 
judgments  and  decrees;  not  to  declare  law,  or  to 
administer  the  justice  of  the  country.  '  Is  that 
the  law  of  the  land,' said  Mr.  Burke,  'upon 
which,  if  a  man  go  to  Westminster  Hall,  and  ask 
counsel  by  what  title  or  tenure  he  holds  nis  pri- 


84 


vile»e  or  estate  according  to  the  law  of  the  land, 
he  should  be  told,  that  the  law  of  the  land  is  not 
yet  known;  that  no  decision  or  decree  has  been 
made  in  his  case;  that  when  a  decree  shall  be 
passed,  he  will  then  know  what  the  laio  of  the 
land  is"^  Will  this  be  said  to  be  the  law  of  the 
land,  by  any  lawyer  who  has  a  rag  of  a  gown 
left  upon  his  back,  or  a  wig  with  one  tie  upon 
his  head?" — Webster. 

^        ^        ^       ^       ^       ^  ^ 

This  is  no  mere  question  of  expediency,  on 
which  a  Senator  may  choose  to  think  as  he 
pleases.  It  is  not  for  you  to  decide  it,  a 
matter  between  high  church  and  low  churi'''» — 
between  city  and  county — between  one  party 
and  another  party  in  the  chur:;h. 

It  is  quite  unlike  most  of  the  commonplace 
questions  before  us,  in  regard  to  many  of  which 
whether  we  vote  or  not,  or  on  what  side  we  vote, 
makes  very  little  difference,  and  on  the  passage 
of  which  we  not  unfrequently  turn  round  and 
ask  a  colleague  what  it  is  all  about?  "Is  it  all 
right?''    "Yes,"  "well  then  I  vote  aye." 

Trinity  church  appeals  to  the  conscience  of 
the  State.  You  are  its  keepers.  \  ou  are  res- 
ponsible to  history  and  to  God  for  the  vote  you 
are  now  to  give,  and  you  will  be  held  to  that 
responsibility  here  and  elsewhere,  now  and  for- 
ever. 

Sir,  there  is  an  incident  in  the  history  of 
the  great  Napoleon,  not  without  aptness  to  the 
present  occasion,  that  conferred  more  honor  upon 
hin:i  than  any  battle  he  ever  won.  He  desired 
to  remove  a  humble  dwelling  in  one  of  the  streets 
of  Paris,  in  order  that  he  might  complete  a  con- 
templated improvement  upon  which  his  heart  was 
set.  The  owner  of  the  dwelling  refused  to  sell  it. 
It  was  his  home  and  he  loved  the  place.  He  was 
a  loyal  subject,  and  would  have  been  happy  to 
serve  the  Emperor,  but  this  was  a  thing  in  which 
he  could  not  yield,  even  to  the  idol  of  France. — 
Force  was  hinted  at,  but  the  man  was  told  there 
was  a  law  for  the  poor  as  well  as  the  rich;  and 
that  his  rights  were  sacred,  even  from  imperial 
encroachment,  andne  stood  firmly  to  his  purpose. 

The  crown  lawyers  consulted  together  to  dis- 
cover, if  possible,  some  mode  by  which  the  cov- 
eted ground  could  be  legally  secured  to  the  Sta'e. 
But  they  found  that  the  law  would  not  warrant 
its  seizure  under  any  pretence,  and  as  a  last  re- 
sort they  again  counselled  force.  They  told  the 
Emperor,  that  for  so  admirable  an  improvement, 
the  people  would  commend  the  act,  and  history 
would  justify  it.  Napoleon  pondered  a  moment 
in  deep  thought  and  then  exclaimed,  "No!  Let 

IT  .STAND  AS  A  MONUMENT  OF  MY  RESPBCT  FOB 
THE  law!" 

When  Mr.  Sickles  look  his  seat,  there  was 
considerable  applause  fiom  the  lobbies,  which 
bad  become  very  densely  crowded  during  the  de- 
livery of  his  speech.  The  demonstration  was 
immediately  checked  by  the  Chairman. 

Mr.  Brooks  then  amended  his  bill  so  as  to  pro- 
vide that  "the  residue"  of  the  "income  and 
proceeds"  of  the  church  shall  be  applied  "  to  the 
general  purposes  of  the  original  grant,"  instead  of 


"  to  the  purposes  of  religion  and  religious  edu- 
cation in  the  citij  and  state  of  New  York." 

Mr.  Brioos:  Mr.  Chairman.  We  have  now 
had  a  long  session  of  over  seven  hours.  The 
evening  is  far  advanced,  and  as  the  Senator  from 
the  6th  (Mr.  Brooks)  will  scarcely  be  able  to 
finish  his  reply  to-night,  and  may  require  more 
time  to  reply  to  the  argument  of  the  Senator 
from  the  3d  (Mr.  Sickles),  and  as  others  may 
desire  to  be  heard  on  the  question,  I  should  sug- 
gesi  an  ajournment  at  once.  I  move,  therefore, 
now  to  rise  and  report  progress. 

Mr.  Spencer:  Oh,  no!  I  hope  that  will  not 
be  done. 

Mr.  NoxON :  No.  Let  us  get  through  to- 
night. 

Mr.  Briggs:  Well,  if  the  motion  does  not 
meet  the  views  of  the  Senate,  I  withdraw  it. 

JflR.  BROOKS'  SFEECH. 

Mr.  Brooks:  Mr.  Chairman.  I  am  obliged 
to  my  friend  the  Senator  from  the  12th  (Mr. 
Briggs)  for  hi.s  motion  to  sive  way;  but  1  should 
neither  be  doing  justice  to  the  Senate,  nor  dis- 
charging what  I  consider  my  duty  to  the  public, 
if  at  lhi<  late  day  of  the  session  I  occasioned  any 
further  delay  on  this  question,  I  supposed  that 
there  was  an  understanding  between  my  col- 
league from  the  3d  (Mr.  Sickles),  and  the  friends 
of  this  bill,  that  there  was  to  be  such  a  partition 
of  time  as  would  have  enabled  all  to  express  their 
views  before  S  o'clock,  which  was  the  hour  fi.xed 
upon  for  taking  a  vote,  and  had  my  colleague 
closed  his  speech  at  that  hour,  I  should  have 
been  willing  to  have  let  the  matter  go  to  the 
Senate  without  any  remarks  from  me.  But  as- 
sailed as  my  substitute  has  been  day  after  <lay, 
and  hour  after  hour;  exhausted  as  I  am  by  a 
session  of  nearly  ten  hours,  and  by  a  long  journey 
from  New  York;  pulled  hither  and  thither  as  I 
am  by  the  business  attendant  upon  three  import- 
ant connmittees — now  having  to  hear  statements 
and  counter  statements  about  a  charter — now 
about  a  police  bill — and  now  again  about  the  ex- 
terior water  lines  along  the  shores  of  New  York 
and  the  rivers  leading  to  the  ocean — I  feel  that  I 
should  be  doing  less  than  my  duty  did  I  fail  to 
reply  to  the  assaults  that  have  been  made  upon 
the  proposed  measure.  Nevertheless,  I  approach 
this  discussion  with  much  diffidence,  because  I 
find  myself  differing  from  distinguished  men  in 
the  legal  profession,  in  and  out  of  this  chamber, 
on  the  question  of  the  law  that  governs  this  case; 
and  with  much  reluctance,  because  I  do  not  feel 
prepared  to  occupy  the  time  of  the  Senate  at 
this  late  stage  of  the  session. 

Sir,  I  never  had  that  overweening  confidence  in 
my  own  judgment  on  questions  of  law  which 
many  see^n  to  have.  I  have  not,  probably  the 
facilities  for  arriving  at  decisions  and  authorities 
touching  legal  questions  that  some  of  my  col- 
leagues enjoy,  and  therefore  I  can  not  arm  my- 
self with  a  long  list  of  cases  decided  in  the  courts 
that  seem  to  bear  out  the  view  1  take  of  the  sub- 
ject. But  I  have  decided  to  look  at  this  bill 
from  some  stand  point,  from  whence  I  could  dis- 


85 


cover  the  true  way  to  do  j\istice  between  these 
parties;  and  although  I  must  confess  that  I  have 
found  myself  at  times  moving  to  and  fro,  like  the 
pendulum  of  a  clock,  I  believe  I  have  found  at 
last  a  position  which  I  believe  to  be  right;  and 
novel  as  this  proposition  is — singular,  profane,  de- 
based as  it  is — I  wish  I  could  remember  all  the 
epithets  that  have  been  heaped  upon  it  by  the 
Senator  who  last  addressed  the  Senate — I  yetcon- 
iider  it  as  a  fair  and  equitable  proposition  as  be- 
tween the  contesting  parties. 

Sir,  I  am  the  autor  of  that  bill.  It  gave  me  a 
great  deal  of  anxiety  to  know  what  I  should  do 
upon  this  question.  It  has  cost  me  many  a 
thoughtful  hour  in  the  solitude  and  quiet  of  my 
own  chamber.  I  desired  to  do  what  was  right. 
I  wished  that  Trinity  should  be  protected  in  her 
church  edifices — in  the  lands  that  properly  belong 
to  them — in  her  burial  places — In  all  that  is 
rightly  her  own.  I  said  to  myself,  this  is  not 
enough.  Trinity  is  not  the  mean,  sordid  cor- 
poration which  some  htive  represented  her  to  be. 
She  has  bestowed  liberally  out  of  her  means  upon 
other  churches,  and  made  provision  for  the  poor 
of  her  parish.  I  therefore  made  a  provision  in 
the  bill  by  which  Trinity  was  to  be  custodian 
and  disburser  of  all  the  funds  appropriated  for  the 
church,  and  of  all  its  charitable  collections.  I 
then  said  to  myself,  it  is  not  right  that  Trinity 
should  be  before  the  world  owing  $000,000.  I 
therefore  made  provision  for  the  payment  of  her 
debt.  And  the  residue  of  her  income  and  the 
proceeds  of  her  estate  I  provide!  should  be  ap- 
plied as  it  seemed  to  me  would  do  the  most  good 
in  the  service  of  the  church.  Therefore,  Mr. 
Chdirman,  in  answer  to,  and  in  r  efutation  of  all 
that  has  been  said  against  this  bill  of  mine  by 
the  Senator  from  the  3d  (Mr.  Sickles),  I  affirm 
that  Trinity  is  protected  by  that  bill  in  her 
church  edifices,  her  church  yards  and  cemeteries 
that  every  stone  and  every  grain  of  sand  where 
.  lie  her  illustrious  dead,  is  held  sacredly  to  be 
[her's  and  her's  alone  for  ever;  and  that  the  pic- 
'  tures  of  stores  and  warehouses  and  post  offices  be 
built  upon  her  estate,  exist  only  in  the  imagina- 
tion of  the  Sen  itor  (Mr.  Sickles). 

We  shall  not  rob  the  living  nor  the  dead.  We 
are  not  the  Jack  Cades  nor  the  Ledru  Rollins 
which  the  Senator  from  the  31-t,  in  the  very 
wildness  of  his  fancy,  pictured  us  to  be.  The 
graves  of  Montgomery  and  Emmet, honore'l  names 
in  two  hemispheres,  and  none  the  less  honored 
by  me  because  they  were  Irishmen  born,  I  prom- 
ise my  friend  shall  remain  undisturbed  in  the 
church  yard  of  St.,  Paul's  to  the  latest  posterity; 
and  so  shall  rest  in  all  the  quiet  repose  of  th«  grave 
the  ashes  of  Hamilton  and  Lawrence  in  the  church 
yard  of  Trinity.  The  genius  and  services  of  Alex- 
ander Hamilton,  mo.-e  than  those  of  almost  any 
other  of  ihe  heroes  and  statesmen  of  my  country, 
first  awakened  in  me  an  interest  in  the  civil  ser- 
vice of  the  land.  He  honored  America,  and  by 
his  candor,  frankness  and  intelligence,  he  honored 
Trinity  church  of  which  he  was  a  counsellor .^nd 
a  frie.id.  Sir,  the  members  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  outside  of  this  one  corporation,  are  not 


hyenas  that  they  should  disturb  graves  like  these. 
There  are  neither  vandals  nor  hyenas  in  the  city 
of  New  York,  or  if  there,  they  are  not  of  the 
Episcopal  church,  I  hope.  Gentle  i  en  forget  the 
extent  of  their  accusations  and  against  whom  they 
fall  when  they  indulge  in  such  assaults  upon  pa- 
triotic and  religious  citizens.  The  noble  spires 
of  old  Trinity,  St.  Paul's  and  St.  John's  will 
continue  to  point  to  heaven,  monuments  of  the 
piety  of  thos  9  who  wor.ship  within  the  conse- 
crated walls  which  support  them,  and  of  the  gen- 
erosity of  their  founders.  The  solid  walls  of 
Trinity  chapel,  in  like  manner,  will  surifive  gen- 
erations of  worshippers,  and,  as  in  Rome,  the 
Coliseum  stands,  linking  as  in  an  unbroken  chain 
the  new  with  the  old,  so  these  noble  piles  will 
endure  to  the  end  of  time. 

I  am  not  able,  like  my  colleague,  to  say  that  I 
am  an  Episcopalian,  either  in  faith  or  by  parent- 
age— either  by  baptism  or  marriage.  Vows  of 
duty  nor  vows  of  love  bind  me  to  the  imposing 
forms  and  ceremonials  of  the  church  whose  feel- 
ings are  so  deeply  enlisted  in  this  unfortunate 
controversy.  I  was  bred  in  a  simpler  and  per- 
haps a  severer  school  of  relifrious  discipline;  but 
if  I  know  my  own  heart,  incapable  of  saying 
aught  or  doing  aught  prejudicial  to  those  of 
another  faith.  The  American  State,  thank 
God,  knows  no  breed  but  the  law  of  liberty  and 
th;  law  of  love.  The  Constitution,  founded 
upon  enduring  principles  of  natural  right,  dis- 
owns creeds  and  sects,  except  as  in  the  eye  of  a 
true  form  of  civil  government.  All  are  equal 
and  all  worthy  of  protection  from  aggression 
upon  the  one  hand  or  oppression  upon  the  other. 
We  have  been  charged  here,  not  merely  with  in- 
novation, but  r;volution  for  the  seven  hours 
past,  and  until  the  pati-tnce  of  the  Senate  must 
be  exhausted  by  the  repetition  of  the  charges. 

Let  us  see  what  are  the  provisions  of  the  bill 
I  have  introduced.  It  contains  three  distinct 
propositions-. 

First — That  Trinity  church  shall  choose  one 
churjhwarden  and  ten  vestrymen,  and  that  all 
the  ot'ier  Episcopal  churches  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  in  communion  with  the  Episcopal  church- 
es of  the  diocese  of  the  state,  snail  choose  the 
same  number,  in  a  manner  prescribed  in  the  act, 
and  that  these  two  wardens  and  twenty  vestry- 
men, with  the  rector  of  Trinity  church  acting 
as  their  presiding  officer,  shall  together  meet  and 
apply  the  income  of  the  corporation,  tirst  to  the 
payment  of  the  interest  on  the  debt  due,  and 
then  to  the  extinguishment  of  whatever  of  the 
principal  t.hey  may  deem  expedient. 

Second — And  ev<;n  before  any  provision  of 
the  means  secured  can  be  disposed  of  for  other 
purposes,  a  sum  sufficient  for  the  proper  main- 
tenance and  support  of  Trinity  church  and  its 
chapels  is  to  be  provided.  All  the  mi  listrations 
of  the  church  for  the  support  of  the  pastors,  for 
Sabbath  schools,  for  visiting  the  poor,  for  the 
renovation  and  repair  of  church  edifices,  are  pro- 
vided for  from  the  general  income,  and  this 
maintenance  and  support,  to  any  reasonable  and 
just  amount,  is  to  be  disbursed  '■'■under  the  sole 


86 


direction  of  the  Rector,  Warden  and  ten  Vestry- 
men of  Trinity  church,  or  chosen  by  the  communi- 
cants and  pew  holders  of  said  church."  What  is 
left  of  this  annual  income  is  to  go  to  "the  sup- 
port of  the  general  purposes  of  the  original 
grant,"  as  these  purposes  or  uses  may  thereafter 
be  set  forth. 

Third — Interference  is  forbidden  with  any  of 
the  property  now  possessed  by  Trinity  church 
and  her  chapels.  The  church  edifices,  church 
yards,  cemeteries,  furniture,  are  tobe  under  the  ex- 
clusive control  of  the  rector,  warden  and  ten  ves- 
trymen whom  she  is  to  choose  with  the  rector,  as- 
sistant ministers  and  all  iiarish  officers.  All  ap- 
pointments, all  money,  appropriated  or  collected 
are  to  be  disposed  of  as  now — at  the  good  will 
and  pleasure  of  those  selected  to  regulate  dis- 
bursements. 

The  Senitor  from  the  sixth  was  pleased  in  the 
course  of  his  speech  to  speak  of  the  ladicalism 
of  this  proposition  in  connection  with  the  com- 
parative purity  of  Tammany  Hall.  Nothing  so 
bad  if  we  are  to  believe  the  Senator  cer  entered 
the  immaculate  precints  of  that  pure  and  holy 
place!  Tammany  Hall  and  Trinity  church! — 
Well,  sir,  the  antipodes  meet  when  things  so 
unlike  are  placed  together.  With  the  mutual 
respect  my  friend  entertains  for  these  two  tem- 
ples, I  presume  he  is  prepared  to  say  with  the 
Psalmist,  that  "  mercy  and  truth  are  met  to- 
gether, righteousness  and  peace  have  kissed  each 
other."  I  respect  Trinity  church  and  Trinity 
corporation,  the  congregations  and  chapels,  far 
too  highly  thus  to  mingle  the  divine  with  the 
profane.  I  have  heard  high  enconiums  paid  the 
democracy  before  to-day.  I  have  heard  it  de- 
clared as  a  sentiment  that  '"democracy  was 
practical  Christianity,"  and  doctrines  even  more 
profane  than  this  have  lound  utterance,  but  I 
hope  not  belief.  My  friend  whose  mind  thus 
'  runs  from  Trinity  church  t5  Tammany  Hall 
charges  my  proposition  with  being  ''an  attack 
upon  the  church  by  the  state."  We  ''are  mak- 
ing," he  says,  "aggressions  upon  the  Episcopal 
church."  My  bill  is  worse  than  the  committee's 
bill,"  and  it  is  classified  with  the  most  abomina- 
ble measures  that  the  wit  of  man  ever  conceived ! 
Well,  fir,  this  is  harsh  criticism,  and  its  want 
of  candor  leaches  me  the  truth  of  the  satirist 
when  he  says,  "of  all  the  cants  in  this  canting 
world,  though  the  cant  of  hypocrisy  may  be  the 
worst,  the  cant  of  criticism  is  the  most  torment- 
ing." At  the  opening  of  this  discussion  the 
Senator  from  the  31st  (Mr.  Wadsworth)  char- 
acterized the  '  lections,  which  would  be  held  un- 
der the  original  bill,  as  bringing  togelher  ''a 
body  of  persons  worse  than  a  Five  Points  mob!" 
Well,  sir,  this  was  not  ver)'  complimentary  to 
the  subject,  and  still  less  so  to  the  Episcopalians 
ot  the  city  of  New  York.  But  nuw  my  col- 
league tells  the  Senate  that  the  bill  of  the  Sena- 
tor from  the  sixih  is  even  worse  than  the  origi- 
nal act!  If  it  be  worse,  I  hope  it  may  be  de- 
feated. If  there  be  in  it  any  setublance  to  a 
mob  spirit,  anything  of  robbery  or  plunder,  spo- 
liation or  revolution,  I  liope  my  substitute  may 


not  only  be  defeated  but  scouted  from  the  cham- 
ber. My  bill,  too,  is  not  only  altogether  atro- 
cious but  wholly  unconstitutional !  Well,  sir,  I  ) 
thiuk  my  colleague  ought  to  thauk  me  for  I 
bringing  forward  so  monstrous  a  proposition, 
for  if  it  is  not  thrown  out  of  the  Senate  in  dis- 
grace it  will  surely  be  turned  out  of  the  courts. 
I  wish,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  oppo-ition  to 
the  substitute  could  be  made  to  assume  some- 
thing like  consistency  or  steadiufss  of  purpose. 
The  argument  of  my  colleague  is  as  variable  as 
a  March  wind,  and  as  uncertain  as  an  April 
shower.  Through  one  hour  he  tells  the  Senate 
that  it  is  robbery  and  spoliation,  and  through 
the  next  hour  the  argument  i^i,  that  '^we  are 
pijint;  a  miserable  stipend  to  Trinity!"  "We 
are  taking  property  from  Trinity  aud  giving  it 
to  outsiders  to  possess  and  control  at  their  own 
good  will  and  pleasure!"  This  is  the  position 
at  one  moment,  and  at  the  next  we  are  told  that 
these  "outsiders  do  not  ask  for  my  bill."  The 
argument  just  now  was,  that  the  country  was 
provided  for  in  the  amendment,  and  that  the 
Senate  had  no  riaht  to  provide  for  such  an  ap- 
piopriatiou  of  the  estate  of  Trinity;  aud  yet  an 
hour  before  it  was  said  that  Trinity,  in  the 
abundance  of  her  goodness,  had  always  been  lib- 
eral and  bountiful  to  the  country  churches,  and 
therefore  that  they  should  not  desert  her  ir.  this 
her  extremity!  Sometimes  there  is  an  appeal 
to  the  city  and  sometimes  to  the  interior  of  the 
State.    Circumstances  alter  cases. 

The  Senator  from  the  third  dwells  upon  the 
authority  of  the  law  of  1814,  I  shall  also  have 
occasion  to  refer  to  the  history  of  that  act  here- 
after, and  to  snow  that  the  non-observance  of  the 
spirit  of  its  provisions  has  been  the  cause  of  the 
dissatisfaction  and  ill-feeling  which  have  grown 
up  among  Episcopalians  in  the  city  of  New  York. 
The  true  and  full  history  of  the  law  of  1814,  has 
not  yet  been  written,  and  I  shall  have  occasion 
to  show  that  history  before  I  close  my  remarks. 
I  will  only  state  here,  in  passing,  that  this  law 
changes  the  title  of  ownership.  It  ignores  the 
right  of  the  inhabitants  in  communion  with  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  city  of  New 
York, — rights  which  had  been  recognized  for  one 
hundred  and  seventeen  consecutive  years.  We 
shall  see,  as  we  progress  in  this  discussion,  where 
the  innovation  and  aggression  charged  upon  this 
side  of  the  chamber  begun,  and  where  it  lies. 
We  shall  see,  too,  that  the  "  race  of  giants,"  as 
my  colleague  calls  the  membersof  the  Legislature 
of  1814,  were  not  then  upon  his  side  of  the  ques- 
tion. Men  of  the  forecaste  of  Martin  Van  Buren 
and  Erastns  Root,  then  State  Senators,  voted 
against  the  act,  and  though  there  were  but  nine 
Senators  who  voted  with  them  against  the  bill,  it 
could  not  have  received  nine  votes  without  the 
fifth  section,  or  without  the  proviso.  The  parlies 
aggrieved  now  claim  that  the  spirit  of  this  fifth 
section  and  the  spirit  of  this  proviso  may  become 
the  law  of  the  state,  and  they  reason  upon  good 
premises,  that  the  same  legislative  power  which 
imposed  the  wrongs  favored  by  the  Legislature 
of  18i4,  may  remove  the  burdens  now. 


87 


The  act  of  1 814  was  not  a  well  considered  law. 
In  proof  of  this  let  me  give  its  history  from  the 
journals  of  the  Senate  anil  Assembly.  The  first 
we  h^ar  of  the  subject  was  at  the  close  of  the 
session  of  1813,  on  the  nth  of  March,  when  a 
petition  was  presented  purporting  to  be  from  the 
rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York 
in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  state  of  New  York.  The  prayer  was  for 
an  act  altering  the  name  of  the  incorporation  and 
settling  the  question  that  might  arise  in  con- 
sequence of  the  incorporating  other  Episcopal 
congregations  in  said  city,  and  doing  away  the 
necessity  of  exhibiting  an  invenlory  and  account 
of  their  estates  and  revenue  more  than  once,  un- 
less upon  the  acquisition  of  additional  property. 

All  the  consideration  this  important  act  had 
was  from  the  17th  to  the  25th  ot  March  in  the 
Senate,  and  from  the  30lh  of  Man  h  to  the  2d  of 
April  in  the  Assembly.  If  there  were  standing 
committees  then,  this  important  bill  had  no  re- 
ference to  such  standing  committees.  Like  too 
many  important  bills  in  our  own  time,  this  was 
presented  late  in  the  session  and  pushed  through 
both  houses  without  due  deliberation  or  scund 
judgment.  But,  Sir,  it  could  never  have  passed, 
as  I  have  already  intimated,  without  promises 
then  made  and  which  have  altogether  failed.  Let 
me  do  no  uiijustice  to  the  authors  of  that  act,  and 
especially  to  the  distinguished  agent  who  was 
here  when  it  passed.  The  fifLh  section,  which 
was  the  chief  agency  in  putting  this  bill  through 
the  Legislature,  reads  as  follows: 

}  5.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  when  and 
as  often  as  it  shall  seem  e.xnedient  to  the  said 
Rector,  Churchwardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity 
Church  in  the  city  of  New  Vork  to  divide  the 
congregation  or  corporators  belonging  to  the  said 
corporation,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  them  so  to  do, 
hy  setting  apart,  as  a  separate  church,  any  of  the 
churches  or  chapels  that  may  belong  to  and  Jotm 
part  of  the  said  corporation;  Provided,  the  same 
be  done  with  the  jissent  of  a  majority  of  the 
persons  entitled  to  vote  as  aforesaid,  who  shall 
belong  to  such  church  or  chapel  intended  to  be  set 
apart,  and  who  shall  attend  a  meeting  to  consider 
of  such  separation,  after  at  least  ten  days'  notice 
previously  given  for  that  purpose  in  the  said 
church  or  chapel,  during  or  imm.ediately  after 
divine  service.  And  such  separation  so  assented 
to,  shall  take  etTect  according  to  the  terms  agreed 
upon  between  the  parties,  and  the  members  of 
tae  congregation  of  such  church  or  chapel  so  se- 
parated shall  immediately  thereafter  cease  to  be 
members  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church 
above  mentioned,  and  may  proceed  to  incorporate 
themselves  according  to  law,  as  a  separate  con- 
gregationof  the  said  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
and  being  so  incorporated  may  receive  from  the  said 
Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  any  grant,  convey- 
ance or  gift  cf  any  chapel  or  other  real  or  personal 
estate  for  iti  separate  use,  and  may  hold  and  enjoy 
the  same  accordingly,  as  fully  and  beneficially  as  any 
such  religious  corporation  can  hold  and  enjoy  its 
temporalities,  howsoever  the  same  may  be  acquired. 

The  argument  addressed  to  the  n;embers  of  the 


legislature  then  as  now,  was  that  no  use  would 
be  made  of  the  property  secured  under  a  new 
form  of  title,  except  in  aiding  separate  churches 
and  chapels  as  distinct  corporations.  The  pro- 
mise, kept  to  the  ear  and  broken  to  the  hope,  was 
then  and  thus  presented  as  "  a  grant,"  a  "  con- 
veyance "  or  "gift"  for  a  separate  possession, 
use  and  enjoyment  for  any  congregation  in  the 
city  of  New  York  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  Colonel  Troup  was  the  agent  of  Tri- 
nity Church  at  the  lime,  and  he  was  here  in 
Aliany  to  aid  in  passing  the  Bill.  He  was,  from 
all  accounts,  a  shrewd  and  able  man,  skilful  as  a 
tactician,  and  of  large  persuasive  powers.  He 
had  a  military  reputation  and  was  in  all  respects 
a  man  of  winning  manners  and  address.  His 
argument  in  behalf  of  the  bill,  addressed  to  the 
council  of  revision,  showed  consummate  tact  and 
judgment,  and  it  produced  its  effect  upon  Chan- 
cellor Lansing,  who  had  given  a  strong  opinion 
against  the  act  of  1814.  as  one  of  the  counsel. 

It  is  true  that  Chancellor  Lansing  voted  against 
his  own  well  considered  objections,  and  why  he 
did  so  I  shall  have  occasion  to  show.  In  the  in- 
terval between  the  passage  of  the  bill  by  the 
Legislature,  and  its  consideration  by  the  Council 
of  Revision,  or  between  April  the  2d,  1S13,  and 
January  25th,  1814,  he  prepared  a  pamphlet  of 
some  seventy  pages,  which  is  now  before  me, 
and  which  is  signed  "New  York,  6th  September, 
1S13.  Robert  Troip."  It  was  written  for  the 
Council  of  Revision  by  the  agent  of  Trinity 
Corporation.  It  produced  its  effect  upon  one  of 
the  members  of  that  council.  It  made  a  tied  vote 
in  the  council,  and  this  result  was  produced,  I 
am  assured,  anil  I  am  warranted  in  saying  so, 
by  the  pamphlet  of  Colonel  Troup  itself.  In  this 
pamphlet,  coming  from  one  employed  by,  and 
authorized  to  speak  for,  Trinity  Church,  the 
council  were  urged  to  approve  the  bill,  upon  the 
ground  that  it  v.ould  secure  a  liberal  bestowment 
of  the  property  belonging  to  the  inhabitants  of 
the  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  city  of  i\ew  York, 
and  under  the  direction  of  the  Rector,  Wardens 
and  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church.  There  are  some 
statements  and  promises  in  this  argument  to 
which,  just  here,  and  now,  I  desire  the  special 
attention  of  the  Senate. 

On  page  11 ,  the  claim  of  Episcopalians  to  vote, 
other  than  those  connected  with  Trinity  Church, 
is  spoken  of  as  follows: 

>4s  the  claim  to  vote  has  a  tendency  to  create 
uneasiness  in  the  minds  of  the  members  of  Tri- 
nity Church  in  particular,  and  to  excite  dissen- 
tions  among  Episcopalians  in  general,  one  of  the 
objects  of  the  bill  is  to  obtain  such  an  interpretation 
of  the  charter  as  iciU  effectually  extinguish  the  claim." 

We  shall  see,  as  we  progress  with  this  discus- 
sion, how  this  claim  was  extinguished.  I  wish 
now  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  there 
was  a  claim,  and  that  the  power  of  the  Legis- 
lature, not  of  the  courts,  was  invoked  to  remove 
it,  and  that  upon  promises  of  arr.endment  which 
have  never  been  realized.  Accordingly  on  the 
I2th  page  of  this  same  pamphlet  we  read  agaiu 
as  follows: 


88 


4 


"  Judging  irom  the  past,  it  is  morally  certain 
that  the  future  increase  of  the  population  of  the 
city  will  stron'^ly  recommend  to  the  corporation  of 
Trinity  Church  the  policy  of  dioiding  its  corporators, 
and  setting  them  off,  in  separate  churches,  with  suit- 
able endowments ;  and,  to  enable  the  Vestry  to  do  this, 
in  a  mode  free  from  all  legal  doubts,  and  with  the 
assent  of  a  majority  of  the  corporators  to  be  set  off, 
is  a  fifth  object  of  the  bill." 

Here  we  advance  from  personal  "  claims," 
which  were  to  be  extinguished  ty  the  act  of  1814, 
to  the  removal  of  '•  legal  doubts,"  to  be  secured 
by  the  same  act. 

But  the  strong  and  effectiv?  appeal  addressed 
to  Chancellor  Lansing,  and  one  which  changed 
his  negative  opinion  to  an  affirmative  vote,  was 
embodied  in  words  which  I  will  now  read,  and 
which  are  more  emphatic  than  any  before  ut- 
tered. They  were  intended  to  produce,  and  did 
produce  a  most  marked  effect  upon  all  who  be- 
lieved what  was  said.  Col.  Troup,  pages  36,  37 
of  his  pamphlet,  says: 

"  Besides  settling  the  important  question,  re- 
lative to  the  elective  franchise,  and  thereby  pre- 
venting litigation,  and  establishing  peace  on  a 
firm  loundalion,  the  bill,  when  passed  into  a  law, 
would  have  the  happy  consequence  of  enabling  the 
Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  from  time  to  time,  as  so- 
ciety shall  advance,  to  separate  the  churches  ivith  the 
consent  of  their  congregations,  and  to  endow  them 
with  competent  estates.  No  power  can  be  more 
congenial  than  this  to  the  spirit  of  our  republican 
systems.  Tlie  frequent  execution  of  the  power  like- 
wise BY  BREAKING  DOWN  THE  ESTATK  OF  TbINITY 
CuURCU,  would  allay  the  fears  of  those  honest  re- 
jyuhlicans  who  look  upon  large  estates  as  nurseries  of 
sentiments  hostile  to  liberty :  and  it  would  calm  the 
minds  of  tlwse  enthusiastic  devotees  who  believe  that 
religious  societies,  when  possessing  wealth,  seldom 
employ  enough  of  it  in  the  heavenly  work  of  propa- 
gating the  gospel." 

It  is  said  that  those  who  left  Trinity  Church 
have  disfranchised  themselves.  I  do  not  admit 
this.  They  have  certainly  not  done  so  by  con- 
sent, by  admission  or  by  acknowledgment  of  any 
sort.  The  reverse  of  this,  upon  the  contrary, 
is  true  ;  for  they  are  here,  petitioners  for  a  res- 
toration of  a  right,  of  which  they  say  they  have 
been  deprived  by  your  act.  The  denial  of  this 
right  on  the  part  of  Trinity  Church  proves  noth- 
ing so  long  as  those  who  are  deprived  of  their 
rights  resist  the  exclusive  use  of  a  power  which 
they  allege  belongs  in  part  to  them.  The  case 
would  be  closed,  perhaps,  if  the  claims  of 
Trinity  Church  were  acquiesced  in  upon  the  other 
side — but  so  long  as  there  is  an  Episcopalian  in 
the  city  of  New  York,  in  comtriunion  with  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slate  of  New 
York,  claiming  a  franchise 'which  is  his  by  the 
chartered  rights  of  those  who  made  him  a  cor- 
porator, so  long  is  the  resistance  of  the  rights  of 
this  one  man  an  act  of  aggression. 

Before  1814,  Trinity  Corporation  acted  in  the 
light  of  a  trustee  lor  the  common  good  of  all 
Episcopalians.  She  gave  lands  and  money  with 
an  unstinted  hand.    She  acted  as  if  the  separate 


congregations  of  Episcopalians  were  her  heirs,  'f' 

She  gave  a  princely  estate  to  St.  Mark's  Church  I"' 
and  to  St.  George's  Church,  now  two  of  the  f 
wealthiest  congregations  in  the  city  of  New  " 
York,  and  whose  presence  here  as  claimants  for  i 
more  of  this  estate,  I  should  regard  as  evidence  ' 
of  great  ingratitude  towards  Trinity,  and  which  ' 
I  can  only  excuse  upon  the  ground  that  they  are  i 
pleading  for  the  rights  of  others,  and  not  their 
own  cause,  for  they  need  nothing,  and  I  am  well 
assured  desire  nothing  for  themselves.    So  of 
Grace  Church,  which  has  been  presented  here  as 
playing  those  fantastic  tricks  before  high  Heaven 
which  make  the  angels  weep. 

To  recur  again  to  the  views  of  Col.  Troup; — 
I  am  ready  to  acltnowledge,  with  him  and  with 
other  advocates  of  Trinity  church,  that  the  right 
to  act  in  this  case  djpeuds  not  so  muci  upon 
any  use  or  misuse  of  power,  not  so  much  upon 
what  Trinity  church  his  done  or  left  undone,  as 
upon  the  rij;hts  of  the  parties  in  interist.    A  Le-  I" 
gislature  can  not  change  the  grants  made  by  do-  " 
nors  to  a  religious  or  lay  corporati )n.    It  can  ' 
not  impair  the  oblig  itioa  impojed  in  the  form  of 
a  co.itract,  for,  if  common  right  did  not  forbid  " 
the  exercise  of  s'jch  a  power,  the  Constitution 
of  th  J  United  States  forbid  it.    In  the  case  before 
us,  we  acknowled|e  both  the  force  of  the  royal 
prerogative,  in  making  the  grants  un  ler  king 
William  and  queen  Anne,  and  the  perpetuation 
of  those  grants  in  all  their  original  force  and  ' 
meaning  by  the  acts  of  the  Legislature  of  this  1 
state.  All  that  my  colleague  sai  1  upon  the  Dart- 
mouth Colk-ge  case,  during  the  hour  and  more 
which  he  took  to  consider  that  case,  I  regard  as 
entirely  inappli  Me  to  the  bill  under  considers- 
tion.     We  are  claiming  the  observance  of  a  char-  i 
ter,  the  fuUillinent  ol  a  contract,  the  recognition 
of  parties  in  that  contract  who  have  beeide- 
priifed,  by  non-user  or  otherwise,  of  privileges  w 
which  are  theirs,  in  cammon  with  those  who  have  \  "i 
had,  for  a  long  series  of  years,  the  sole  use  of  ,  l« 
these  privileges.  i  " 

The  pamphlet  of  Col.  Troup,  the  adverse  re-  \  ii 
ports  of  1814,  the  argument  of  counsel,  the  de-  i  if 
bates  here,  all  d>vell  upon  what  is  represented  as 
a  quiet  acquiescence  in  this  sole  use  of  power  f 
by  Trinuy  church.     There  is  neither  law  nor  m 
justice  in  such  a  position.     Therjij  no  justice  » 
in  it,  because  peaceful  acquiescence  in  a  wrong  fi 
committed  and  persisted  in  by  others  should  not  n 
be  taken  as  evidence  of  approval  or  satisfaction,  i 
Many  have  declined  to  act  fir  the  sake  of  peace,  i 
many  from  indifference,  and  very  many  others  a 
because  they  hoped  from  yea  -  to  year,  and  from  i 
time  ti  time,  that  a  more  satifactory  adminis-  ' 
tration  of  the  affairs  of  Trinity  church  would  se- 
cure mutual  peace  and  mulal  good  will.     But  I 
need  no:  say  to  an  American  citizen  that  Epis- 
copalians in  the  city  of  .Vew  York  who  have  not 
claimed  their  right  anil  exercised  the  I  ranchise,  j 
have  become  necessarily  deprived  Qf  such  rights  li 
by  any  omission  of  this  sort.    The  citizen  who  li 
does  not  vote  for  twenty  or  forty  years  is  none  H 
the  less  a  citizen,  an  1  none  the  less  entitled  to 
his  vote.    I  have  the  highest  legal  authority,  also  i 


89 


for  saying  that  no  length  of  time  alone  ever  estab- 
lishes a  right  gained  by  usurpation  or  under  a  void 
grant  in  favor  of  one  set  of  corporators  against 
their  co-corporators — unless  there  has  been  a 
claim  of  right  by  the  latter,  a  denial  of  such  ri^ht, 
and  an  acquiescence  of  such  denial  for  at  least  a 
period  of  twenty  years.  This  is  settled  law. — 
Accordin'ly  where  a  second  charter  was  granted 
to  a  municipal  corpor  ition,  limiiing  the  number 
of  electors,  and  excluding  a  portion  who  by  the  first 
charter  was  entitled  to  vote  (as  in  the  pr  sent  case), 
although  electij  is  had  been  holden  under  the  se- 
cond charte:  for  the  period  of  thirty-five  years, 
the  second  charter  was  adjudged  void.  See  Rex 
V.  Wynne,  2  Barnardiston,  391.  So  in  another 
case  the  right  of  a  corporation  under  a  charter 
was  enforced,  although  there  had  been  a  «sa?e 
to  the  contrary  for  upwards  of  o;  e  hundred  and 
fifty  years.  The  King  v.  Jones,  of  Modern  Reports, 
201.  See  also  7  Modem,  1901,  where  effects  was 
given  to  a  charter,  after  a  usage  to  the  contrary 
of  sixty  years. 

In  what  relation,  then,  has  Trinity  church 
stood  tJ  this  fund,  which  has  been  used  so  dif- 
ferently at  different  times,  and  reeulated  and  dis- 
posed of  upon  one  set  of  lules  prior  to  1814,  and 
upon  an  entiiely  different  set  since  that  period. 
Before  1814,  Trinity  church  gave  away  two 
hundred  and  ninety-nine  lots  of  ground. in  the  next 
twenty-two  years,  only  nineteen  lots,  and  in  the 
last  twen'y  she  has  parted  with  none  as  gifts  ex- 
cept some  plats  in  one  of  her  cemeteries.  To 
this  unequal  mode  of  distribution,  no  doubt,  may 
be  traced  much  of  the  dissatisfaction  of  which 
we  have  heard,  and  which  has  finally  ended  in 
the  presentation  of  petitions,  some  of  them,  be  it 
remembered,  from  Corporators  of  Trinity  church, 
begging  tor  a  change  of  the  law  of  1S14.  Clergy 
and  laymen,  petitioners  at  home  and  in  public 
meetings,  join  in  the  prayer  that  this  relation 
may  be  changed,  and  that  the  law  of  1814  may 
be  modified  or  repealed.  Is  it  strange  that  those 
complaints  have  been  heard?  Who  here  or  bey- 
ond the  chamber  has  had  the  courage  to  say  that 
true  wisdom  or  sound  policy  has  distinguished  the 
administration  of  the  fund  in  question?  If  we 
pause  to  compare  the  prosperity  which  has  dis- 
tinguished Trinity  church  and  her  chapels  with 
some  of  the  independent  congregations,  self-sup- 
porting or  aided  by  their  mother  church,  we 
shall  be  inclined  to  write  conspicuously  in  letters 
of  gold  printed  upon  tablets  of  marble,  in  front 
,  of  every  altar,  as  a  golden  rule  not  only  for  every 
corporation,  but  for  every  intelligent  and  liberal 
minded  citizen,  those  words  of  noble  import,  fit 
to  be  inscribed  upon  the  tomb  of  every  philanthro- 
pist, patriot  and  philosopher:  "What  I  gave  I 
have,  what  I  kept  I  lost." 

In  this  sense,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  trust  of  Trin- 
ity has  not  been  wisely  administered.  I  am  told 
that  it  is  no  trust.  I  appeal  to  the  testimony  ol 
the  Rector  of  Trinity  church  to  prove  that  it  is  a 
trust,  and  tffe  highest  of  trusts.  The  excellent 
Dr  Berrian,  in  his  address  at  the  opening  ol 
Trinity  chap-1,  on  the  22d  of  April,  said  to  his 
hearers  in  vindicatioa  of  the  expenditure  upon 


this  Costly  edifice,  the  expense  of  which  was 
nearly  a  quarter  of  a  million  of  dollars,  that  it 
was  "  a  great  trust,  which  had  been  administered 
with  an  uprightness,  liberality  and  wisdom,  which, 
even  in  this  country,  has  never  been  surpassed." — 
Upon  this  point  gentlemen  may  very  honestly 
differ.  I  have  had  occasion  to  refer  to  the  testi- 
mony of  a  very  distinguished  lavman,  one  of  the 
Corpotaturs  and  Vesirymen  of  Trinity  church,  to 
prove  the  very  opposite  of  all  this.  In  a  moral 
sense,  my  colleague  admits  that  this  vast  pro- 
perty, controlled  by  a  standing  committee,  elected 
sometimes  bv  less  then  fifty  persons,  is  a  trust. — 
I  think  it  is  a  trust  both  in  a  moral  and  legal 
sense,  but  for  my  present  purpose,  remembering 
that  it  is  property  set  apart  for  religious  purpo- 
ses, let  it  be  considered  in  the  latter  light — for 
what  is  moral  and  not  illegal,  or  what  is  just  and 
equitable,  I  should  suppose  to  fall  within  that 
golden  rule  which  makes  up  a  cardinal  principle 
of  practical  Christianity.  On  this  account  it  is 
thai  some  of  the  voters  by  law  ask  of  Trinity 
church  justice  for  their  Christian  brethren  of 
other  Episcopal  congregations.  They  do  not  de- 
sire to  see  those  who  are  the  "Ambassadors  of 
the  Cross,  the  Legatees  of  the  skies,"  those  "by 
whom  the  violated  law  speaks  out  its  thunders," 
and  "by  uhom,  in  strains  as  sweet  as  angels  use, 
the  Gospel  whispers  peace,"  engaged  in  a  warfare 
so  strange  and  unnatural.  I  speak  to-night  for  this 
class  of  persons,  not  less  than  for  those  more 
prominent  in  urging  action  and  justice  at  your 
hands.  I  speak  tor  thousands  of  others  in  the 
city  of  New  York  and  elsewhere,  whose  voices 
have  not  been  heard  in  your  halls  or  at  public 
meetings,  but  who  pray  for  peace  on  earth  and 
good  will  among  men — who  plead  with  us  as 
Paul  plead  with  the  men  of  Rome  and  Corinth, 
to  be  instrumental  in  avoiding  those  dissensions 
and  strifes  among  those  of  the  same  household 
and  faith,  which  often  brings  such  deep  and  last- 
ing disgrace  upon  ihe  cause  of  relision  Those 
who  have  read  the  books  which  have  been  printed 
upon  this  subject,  who  have  seen  and  heard  the 
accusations  made  by  letter  and  by  word  of  mouth, 
who  have  been  cognizant  of  the  bad  feeling  en- 
gendered upon  one  side  and  the  other,  must  not 
only  feel  pained  at  what  has  occurred,  but  heart- 
ily wish  this  controversy  at  an  end. 

Of  course  we  must  act,  if  we  act  at  all,  within 
the  provisions  of  the  charter,  the  Constitution  and 
the  laws;  and  this,  Mr.  Chairman,  brings  me  to 
the  consideration  of  the  subject  in  its  legal  aspect. 

I  find  that  in  1697,  under  the  reign  of  King 
William  the  Third,  a  monarch  of  beloved  memory 
to  those  who  cherish  many  of  the  prominent  in- 
cidents of  his  life  and  reign,  that  for  the  purposes 
of  '•  settling  a  ministry  and  raising  a  maintenance 
for  them,  in  the  city  of  New  Vork,  counties  of 
Richmond,  Westchester  and  Queens,"  one  hun- 
dred pounds  once  in  every  year  was  to  be  assessed, 
levied,  collected  and  paid  to  support  a  Protestant 
minister  "  to  officiate  and  have  the  care  of  souls 
within  "  our  Protestant  church  of  England,  estab- 
lished in  our  said  cityof  New  York."  He  was  to  be 
by  our  laws."  Besides  the  one  hundred  pounds  of 


12 


90 


thus  to  be  assessed  and  levied  for  this  purpose, 
there  was  a  royal  grant  and  confirmation  of  a  cer- 
tain church  and  steeple  built  within  the  city,  and 
a  certain  piece  or  parcel  of  ground  thereunto  ad- 
joinuii;." 

"  Scituate  lyeing  and  beeing  in  or  neere  to  a 
streete  without  the  north  gale  of  our  said  city 
coninoonly  called  and  knowne  by  the  nanne  of  the 
Broadway,  conteining  in  breadth  on  the  East 
.end  as  the  said  streete  of  the  Broadway  rangeth 
Northward  three  hundred  and  tenn  foot  unlill 
you  come  unto  the  land  lately  in  the  tenure  and 
occupation  of  Thomas  Lloyd  Deed :  and  from 
thence  towards  the  west  in  length  by  the  saiH  land 
untill  you  come  unio  Hudson's  River  and  thence 
southward  along  Hudson's  river  three  hundred 
and  ninety-five  foot  all  of  English  measure,  and 
from  thence  by  the  line  of  our  garden  Eastward  un- 
to the  place  of  the  said  street  in  the  Broadway 
where  lirst  begunn,  and  that  the  said  church  to- 
gether with  the  cemetry  or  churchyard  thereunto 
adjoyning  may  forever  hereafter  be  dedicated  and 
consecrated  to  the  public  worship  and  service  of 
God  according  to  the  Rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
prot'Stant  church  of  England  as  now  established 
by  our  laws.  ' 

This  is  the  preamble,  which  further  recites 
that  it  shall  be  for  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  in 
communion  of  the  Protestant  church  of  England 
as  now  established  by  our  laws.  Coming  to  the 
body  of  this,  the  first  charier,  we  read  what  I 
regard  to  be  the  uses  of  the  property  according 
to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  donor. 
After  again  declaring  the  purposes  of  the  gift  to 
be  "to  promote,  propagate  and  encourage  all 
our  loving  subjects  within  our  said  province,  in 
that  reverend  and  Godly  duty  in  worshipping  and 
revering  God  according  to  the  commendable 
rites  and  ceremonies  of  our  Protestant  church  of 
England,"  it  is  added  (in  regard  to  the  property 
above  set  forth) : 

"The  same  is  hereby  declared  to  be  separated  and 
dedicated  to  the  service  of  God,  and  to  be  applyed 
therein  to  the  use  and  bchal/c  of  the  inhabitants  f>om 
time  to  time  inhabiting,  and  to  inhabit,  7vithin  our 
said  City  of  Neio  Yorke,  in  commuaion  of  our  said 
Protestant  Church  of  England  as  now  cslablis)icd  by 
our  laws,  and  to  no  otiicr  use  or  purpose  u-hatsoevcr, 
any  statute  law,  custome,  or  usage  to  the  contrary 
in  any  ways  notwithstanding.  *  *  * 
*  *  And  we  have  further  thought  fitt  and, 
at  the  humble  request  of  our  said  loving  subjects, 
are  graciously  pleased  to  create  and  make  him 
our  said  Right  trusty  and  well  beloved  and  Right 
Reverend  Father  in  God  Henry  Lord  Bishop  of 
London  and  his  successors.  Rector  of  the  said 
Parish,  together  with  all  the  inhabitants  from  lime 
to  time  inhabiting,  and  to  inhabit  in  our  said  city  of 
Neva  Yorke,  and  in  communion  of  our  aforesaid 
Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  now  established 
by  our  laws,  a  body  corporate  and  Politiq,  with  the 
powers  and  privileges  hereinafter  mentioned. 
And  accordingly  our  Royall  will  and  pleasure  is, 
and  of  our  speciall  Grace  certaine  knowledge  and 
meere  motion  We  have  ordained,  constituted, 
and  declared,  and  by  these  presents  for  us,  our 


heirs  and  successors,  do  ordaine,  constitute,  anjlj 
declare  that  he.  the  said  Right  trusty  and  well  | 
beloved  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God,  Henry,  | 
Lord  Bishop  of  London,  and  his  successors,  and  | 
all  such  of  our  loving  subjects  aa  now  are  or  | 
hereafter  shall  be,  admitted  into  the  communion  i 
of  aforesaid  Protestant  Church  of  England  as 
now  established  by  our  laws,  shall  be  from  time  i 
to  time  and  forever  hereafter  a  body  corporate  j 
and  politique,  in  fact  and  name,  by  ilie  name  of' 
tlie  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  our  said  City  of  Ncie 
York,  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  Church  of 
England  as  now  established  by  our  lawsy 

Now  sir,  we  have  here  three  classes  of  per- 
sons— the  Donor — being  the  King,  afterwards  by 
the  enlargement  of  the  gift,  Queene  Anne — the 
donees,  being  the  persons  holding  the  property, 
and  the  Beneficiaries.  The  uses  are  most  clear- 
ly set  forth,  and  the  parties  to  be  benefited  are 
"  all  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting 
and  to  inhabit  our  saiil  city  of  Neio  York  in  com- 
munion of  our  Church  of  England."  And  this 
property  is  to  be  "separated  and  dedecated  to 
the  service  of  God  forever,"  and  "to  no  other 
use  or  purpose  whatsoeifer,"  and  all  statute  law, 
usage,  customs  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

Now  sir,  what  does  this  charter  mean,  if  it  is 
not  capable  of  the  simple,  liberal  and  just  con- 
struction put  upon  it  in  the  words  I  have  empha- 
sized. I  desire  to  consider  all  these  laws  as  a 
unit,  and  to  iollow  them  up  from  1097,  through 
the  acts  of  1704,  170.5,  1714,  1777,  1784  and 
17S8,  down  to  the  objectionable  net  of  1814, 
which  I  have  spoken  of  at  so  much  length.  I 
desire  to  go  back  to  the  original  charter,  and 
.step  by  step  to  follow  up  each  royal  grant  and 
law  to  the  separation  of  the  colonies  by  the  ac- 
knovi'ledged  Independence  of  the  United  States, 
and  from  177,5  to  the  present  hour.  I  am  will- 
ing to  start  with  the  legislative  act  of  1784,  and 
just  as  willing  to  hinge  that  act  upon  every  pre- 
vious grant  and  law.  Through  each  and  every 
act,  the  inhabitants  in  communion  with  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  church  in  the  city  or  state  of 
New  York  are  recognized.  Thus  the  title  of  the 
act  of  1784  reads: 

"  An  act  for  granting  sundry  Privileges  and 
Powers  to  the  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the 
city  of  New  York,  of  the  Communion  of  the 
church  of  England,  as  by  Law  established. 
Passed  the  27th  of  June,  1704." 
The  preamble  says: 

"  Whereas,  the  Inhabitants  of  the.  city  of  New 
York,  of  the  Communion  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, as  by  Law  established,  for  some  years  past, 
by  voluntary  contribution  of  themselves  and  others, 
fai'oring  the  Churche's  Interest,  have  erected  a 
Church  icithin  said  City,  for  the  service  and  wor- 
ship of  jUlmighty  God  called  by  the  name  of  Trinity 
Church,"  ^c. 
The  first  section  also  says: 

"That  from  HENCEFORWAHf ,  FOREVER 
HEREAFTER,  the  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the 
said  City  of  New  York,  in  Communion  of  the 
Church  of  England,  as  by  law  established  and  their 
successors,  be,  and  shall  be  able  and  capable  in  the 


91 


law,  for  the  maintenance  and  recovery  of  their 
estates,  rights  and  privileges,"  &c. 

The  seco.id  section  provides: 

"  That  the  said  R-clor  and  Inhabitants  and 
their  Successors  by  the  same  name  from  hence- 
forward, forever,  have,  and  shall  have  full  power, 
good  right,  and  lawful  authority,  to  have,  take, 
receive,  acquire  and  purchase,  and  use,  and  en- 
joy Lands,  Tenements,  and  Hereditaments, 
Goods  and  Chattels,'"  &c. 

The  third  section  is  imperative  and  says: 

'"That  the  said  Church  and  Premises,  be  from 
henceforward  forever  set  apart  and  separated  for 
the  Religious  Uses  aforesaid ;  and  tliat  the  Pat- 
ronage and  Advowson  of  the  said  Church,  and 
Right  of  Presentation  (after  the  Death  of  the 
Present  Rector,  or  upon  next  avoidance,  and  for- 
ever thereafter)  shall  belong  and  appertain  to 
the  Church  Wardens,  and  Vestrymen  of  the  said 
Church,  annually  elected  or  to  be  elected  by  the  In- 
habitants aforesaid,  in  Communion  as  aforesaid,  in 
Manner  hereafter  mentioned,  and  expressed." 

The  grant  of  Queen  Anne  is  brief  in  words, 
but  most  bountiful  in  its  bestowments,  if  we 
consider  the  value  of  what  is  left  of  the  grant 
then  made.  In  the  preamble  we  read  once  again 
of  the  rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New 
York,  in  comniunion  of  the  Church  of  England, 
as  by  law  established,  and  to  them,  on  the  peti- 
tion of  the  Captain  General  and  Governor-in- 
Chief,  Edward  Viscount  Cornbury,  is  made  over 
for  the  same  noble  uses  before  described. 

"All  those  our  severall  closes;  peeces  and  par- 
cells  of  land,  meadows  and  pastures  formerlly 
called  the  Duke's  Farme,  and  the  King  s  Farme, 
and  now  known  by  the  name  of  the  Queen's 
Farme,  with  all  and  singular  ye  fences,  inclos- 
nres,  improvements  and  appurtenances  whatso- 
ever thereunto  belonging  as  the  same  are  now  in 
the  occupation  of  and  enjoyed  by  George  Ryerse 
of  the  City  of  New  York,  yeoman,  or  by  any 
former  tenant,  scituate,  lying  and  being  on  the 
Island  Manhattans  in  the  City  of  New  York 
aforesaid,  and  bounded  on  the  East,  partly  by 
the  Broadway,  partly  by  the  Common,  and  part- 
ly by  the  Swamp,  and  on  the  West  by  Hudson's 
River,  and  also  all  that  our  piece  or  parcell  of 
ground,  scituate  and  being  on  the  south  side  of 
the  churchyard  of  Trinity  Church  aforesaid, 
commonly  called  and  known  hy  the  natie  of  the 
Queen's  Garden,  fronting  to  the  said  Broadway 
on  the  East,  and  extending  to  low  water  marke 
upon  Hudson  River  on  the  West,  all  which  said 
premises  are  now  lett  at  the  yearly  rent  ot  thirty 
pounds,  which  reasonable  request  wee  being 
willing  to  grant: 

"Know  ye  that  of  our  especial  grace,  certaine 
knowledge,  and  meer  motion,  we  have  given, 
granted,  ratified  and  confirmed  in  and  by  these 
presents,  for  ourself,  our  heirs,  and  successors, 
we  do  give,  grant,  rattify  and  confirm  unto  the 
taid  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New 
York  in  communion  of  the  Church  of  Em^land  as 
bylaw  established  and  their  successors  all  and  sing 
■ular  the  said  farme  lands,  tenements  and  heredita- 
ments." 


Here  is  the  foundation  of  that  splendid  prop- 
erty, the  remnant  of  which  is  now  worth  more 
than  a  htmdred  times  the  value  of  the  original 
grant.  The  act  of  1714  is  immaterial  to  the  two 
charters  already  referred  to.  It  bears,  however, 
the  distinguished  name  of  "Bolingbroke,"  acting 
as  the  minister  of  the  Queen,  and  it  confirmed 
the  rector  and  inhabitants  before  mentioned  in  all 
the  possessions  before  conveyed,  some  of  which, 
in  the  name  of  the  Crown,  had  become  involved 
in  the  webs  of  the  law  through  the  Court  of 
Chancery.  By  royal  favor  they  were  set  free. 
We  next  come  to  the  law  of  17S4,  which  refers 
to  the  Charter  of  1697,  and  the  Colonial  act  of 
1704,  carefully  preserving  the  closest  relation- 
ship of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York, 
of  the  Protestant  Church  of  England,  some  por- 
tions of  which  are  too  important  to  be  omitted. 
One  of  these  provisions  saves  the  parties  in  in- 
terest all  loss  of  right  on  account  of  non-user  or 
mis-user  on  account  of  a  change  of  civil  govern- 
ment, as  between  the  Cro  .vn  and  the  Republic. 
The  third  and  chief  recital  in  this  act  reads  as 
follows: 

jIII  persons  professing  themselves  Members  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  who  shall  either  hold,  occupy 
or  enjoy  a  Pew  or  Seat  in  the  said  Church,  AND 
SUCH  OTHERS  AS  SHALL  in  the  SAID  Chunh  par- 
take of  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
at  least  oyice  in  every  year,  being  Inhabitants  of  tlie 
City  and  County  of  New  York,  shall  be  entitled  to 
ALL  the  Rights,  Privileges,  Benefits  and  Emolu- 
ments, which  in  and  by  the  said  Charter  and  Law 
first  above  mentioned,  are  designed  to  be  secured  to 
the  Inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York  in  Com- 
munion of  the  Church  of  England," 

All  Episcopalians  occupying  or  enjoying  a 
pew  or  seat  in  the  Episcopal  churches,  and  regu- 
larly paying  to  the  support  of  said  churches, 
and  those  partaking  of  the  Holy  Sacrament  in 
said  churches,  and  herein  mentioned,  with  all 
the  force  and  directness  of  which  language  is  ca- 
pable. Trinity  Church  singly  is  here  nowhere 
named  or  implied,  except  as  a  part  of  the  great 
whole  of  which  she  was  the  head  and  front. 
The  fourth  section  of  the  act  strengthens  the 
first,  and  speaks  of  "immunities,  emoluments, 
and  privileges,"  not  to  Trinity  Church,  but  to 
"the  Episcopal  Church,  or  that  mode  of  re- 
ligious worship,  commonly  called  the  Church  of 
England." 

Coming,  finally,  to  the  act  of  1788,  "  The 
Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York, 
in  communion  of  the  Church  of  England"  are 
preserved,  to  the  letter,  in  the  preamble,  and  the 
name  is  changed,  in  answer  to  the  petition  pre- 
sented, so  as  to  read,  "the  Rector  and  inhabit- 
ants of  the  city  of  New  York,  in  communion 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  State 
of  New  York,"  and  this  was  the  style  and  title 
until  the  memorable  act  of  1814. 

It  will  he  seen  that  the  Legislature  has  passed 
four  acts  in  reference  to  this  subject,  and  we  are 
now  asked  to  pass  a  fifth.  In  the  judgment  of 
many  the  law  of  1814  was  an  unconstitutional 
act.    It  became  a  law,  not  by  the  concurrence  of 


92 


the  Council  of  Revision,  but  by  a  tie  vote  in  that 
revision  Had  the  Council  been  full,  I  am  au- 
thorized to  say,  that  the  vote  would  have  been, 
OP  the  20th  of  January,  when  the  subject  was 
under  consideration,  iour  against  the  act,  and 
three  in  ils  favor.  Smith  Thompson,  one  of  the 
Executive  Council,  afterwards  one  of  the  judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  was  against  the  act,  and 
complained  that  the  question  had  been  taken  in 
his  absence.  Later  in  life,  Chancellor  Kent, 
who  voted  for  the  law,  spoke  of  it  as  one  of  his 
youthful  follies,  and  as  an  act  which  he  most 
deeply  regretted.  The  mature  judgment  of  five 
of  the  seven  gentlemen  composing  the  Council 
of  Revision  was  against  the  coustitutionalily 
and  expediency  and  justice  of  the  act  of  1814; 
and  of  the  remaining  two,  one  had  written  a 
very  able  opinion  against  it.  There  was  also  a 
strong  protest  against  the  act  at  the  time  it  passed, 
and  if  there  has  been  a  silent  acquiescence  in  it 
from  year  to  year,  there  has  never  been  any  con- 
current sentiment  in  favor  of  the  law. 

The  changes  proposed  in  my  bill  may  be 
amendable  to  the  charge  of  novelty,  but  other 
changes  have  been  made  by  law  in  this  very 
charter  now  un  ler  debate.    Many  provisions  of 

the   charter  of  1697  have    become  absolete.  

Trinity  Church  no  longer  has  the  sole  and  only 
Episcopal  churchyard  in  the  city  of  New  York. 
There  is  no  longer  a  limitation  of  property  to 
X5,000,  with  .£10  to  be  paid  (or  the  clerk.  We 
hear  no  more  of  the  election  of  persons  into  the 
corporation.  The  assistant  minister  no  longer 
holds  his  place  for  life.  The  resolution  of  a  ves- 
try ipso  facto,  deposes  every  rector  and  assist- 
ant who  may  be  elected  to  the  Episcopate,  while 
the  old  charter  read  that  the  Rector  shall  and 
may  nominate  assistant  ministers,  but  now  Rec- 
tors and  uninisters  are  not  only  nominated  by  the 
vestry,  but  even  the  Rector's  n'>mination  is 
sometimes  defeated.  The  law  of  1704  spoke  of 
communicants  also  as  possessing  certain  powers; 
and,  Mr.  Chairman,  with  the  example  of  all 
these  changes,  I  shall  be  pardoned  I  hope  for  at- 
tempting one,  which  though  it  may  have  the 
touch  of  novelty  in  it,  is  nevertheless  founded 
injustice  and  upon  a  hope  of  future  peace. 

My  colleague  has  dwelt  at  murh  length  upon 
vhat  was  meant  by  a  pari«h."  What  it  meant  in 
the  charier  of  1697,  as  I  can  prove  by  admission 
and  citation  of  facts,  was  the  whole  island  of 
Manhattan.  It  meant  more  than  a  spire,  the 
four  walls  of  a  church,  and  one  congregation. 
If  it  did  not,  how  comes  it  that  Trinity  has  four 
churches,  lour  congregations,  and  church  pro- 
perty scattered  all  over  the  city — a  churchyard 
in  the  lower  part  of  the  city  and  one  of  some 
acres  in  the  middle  of  the  island  ?  How  is  it  that 
there  is  a  distance  of  more  than  three  miles  be- 
twein  Trinity  church  and  Trinity  chapel?  Do 
those  congregations  make  distinct  parishes  in  the 
eyes  of  the  law  or  in  the  spirit  of  the  charter? 
No,  Sir;  every  man  knows  that  the  charter  of 
1697  was  meant  to  cover  every  Episcopalian  in 
good  standing  on  the  whole  island  of  Manhattan. 
My  colleague  says  that  "  a  parish  is  a  unit  all 


over  the  world."  It  is  no  more  so  than  a  church, 
the  original  meaning  of  which  was  a  house  of 
God,  but  the  enlarged  meaning  of  which  is  a 
collective  body  of  Christians.  We  speak  of  the 
Presbyterian,  the  Baptist,  the  E|)iscopal,  the 
Methodi't  or  other  churches.  We  read  of  the 
Catholic  or  universal  church.  The  church  of 
Ephesus  or  Antioch  meant  the  followers  of 
Christ  in  a  particular  city.  In  a  broader  and 
nobler  sense  the  collective  body  of  saints  in  hea- 
ven is  called  the  Invisible  church.  Parish,  too, 
has  many  interpretations.  It  has  a  political,  or 
local  meaning  in  Louisiana.  In  New  England 
it  has  a  religious  signification.  We  speak  of  the 
the  parish  priest  and  the  parish  poor.  In  different 
stales  and  countries  it  has  a  civil  and  religious  sig- 
nification, hut  in  1693,  and  in  1703,  and  later,  it 
had  a  geographical  or  political  meaning,*  and 
covered  all  who,  "of  one  faith  and  one  substance 
bred,"  were  of  the  church  of  England;  and,  Mr. 
Chairman,  there  seems  to  be  a  dignity,  a  justice 
and  a  chsrity  in  this  interpretation,  that  ought 
to  make  it  acceptable  to  all  true  Christian  men. 
How  is  it  possible  for  those  who  worship  at  the 
same  altars,  read  the  same  prayers,  make  confes- 
sion in  the  same  words  for  the  same  sins,  who 
plead  for  paidon,  hope  for  mercy,  and  who  mean 
to  be  governed  by  the  same  catholic  spirit,  thus 
to  make  war  upon  each  other  upon  a  question  of 
franchise  over  atoms  of  dust  less  perishable  than 
their  own  frail  bodies! 

Mr.  Chairman;  The  subject  is  before  the  Sen- 
ate. It  has  been  here  through  long  weeks  and 
weary  days.  It  has  trespassed  upon  hours  which 
should  have  been  devoted  to  rest.  All  sides  have 
been  heard  and  fully  heard;  my  colleague,  for 
seven  hours  and  a  half  consecutively  this  even- 
ing, and  for  three  hours  previously,  it  has 
attracted  universal  attention  at  ihe  capitol,  in  the 
city  of  New  York  and  in  all  parts  of  the  state. 
History,  if  impartial,  while  it  will  recite  much 
that  is  mentioned  by  my  colleague,  will  also  give 
a  hearing  to  those  who  are  held  up  to  odium. 
Truth  is  not  blind  nor  deaf.  With  eyes  to  see 
and  ears  to  hear,  what  is  omitted  by  my  colleague 
or  by  myself  will  be  revealed,  and  in  that  reve- 
lation which  is  divested  of  all  prejudice  and 
all  passion.  In  introducing  my  substitute,  I 
have  been  governed  by  a  sincere  desire  to  har- 
monize existing  difficulties.  I  have  no  motive 
for  action  but  the  private  and  public  good.  The 
substitute  is  one  of  compromise;  and  if  it  can  be 
received  in  the  spirit  in  which  it  is  offered,  it 
will  lead  to  that  restoration  of  peace  and  good 
will  which  all  true  men  must  heartily  desire  I 
invoke  Senators,  and  I  invoke  all  who^e  feelings 
have  been  enlisted  in  this  controversy,  for  the 
inculcation  of  that  spirit  of  Christian  charity  in 
disposing  of  this  subject  which  covereth  a  multi* 
tude  of  sins — which  hopeth  all  things,  whiclf 
endureth  all  things,  which  believeth  all  things! 
and  which  suffereth  all  things,  and  is  kind.  | 
invoke  also  for>the  hearts  and  judgments  of  men 
something  of  that  inward  good  fellowship,  whichj 
like  the  quality  of  mercy,  is  not  strai  ;ed,  whichj 
"  falleth  as  the  gentle  rain  from  heaven  upoal 

*  Seo  Appendix  D.  ] 


i 


93 


the  place  beneath,"  and  which  "  blesseth  him 
that  gives  and  him  that  takes."  I  have  been 
governed  by  a  single  motive  in  the  part  I  have 
most  unwillingly  taken  in  the  debate,  and  I  leave 
the  subject  to  the  Senate,  in  the  single  hope  that 
whatever  is  done  may  be  well  done,  working 
neither  injury  to  persons,  nor  resulting  in  evil  to 
the  cause  of  religion.  Property,  like  riches, 
takes  wings  and  flies  away.  A  modern  French 
philosopher  calls  it  "robbery."  Let  me  hope, 
sir,  that  while  we  are  pictured  as  robbers  by  our 
enemips,  because  we  seek  to  give  to  others  that 
which  is  their  own,  the  result  of  this  night's  de- 
liberation may  prove  that  some  of  us  know  both 
how  to  bear  reproach  against  ourselves,  while 
we  are  ready  to  maintain  the  rights  of  our  fellow 
men.  Let  history  but  record  impartially  what 
we  are  now  doing,  and  for  one,  as  a  Senator  and 
a  citizen,  I  am  content  to  abide  its  verdict. 
Shielding  myself  behind  the  honored  names  of 
Gov.  Tompkins,  Spencer,  Yates  and  Chief  Jus- 
tice Kent;  and  fallinfr  back  upon  the  written 
opinion  of  Chancellor  Lansing;  looking  to  the 
language  of  'he  charters  and  the  spirit  of  the 
laws,  I  shall  hope  that  no  act  of  mine,  in  con- 
nection with  this  bill,  can  inflict  wrong  upon  any 
body  of  Christians  or  class  of  persons  in  the  state. 
To  differ  with  esteemed  friends,  whose  counsels 
I  have  shared  and  whose  friendships  I  have  enjoy- 
ed, is,  I  confess,  most  painful;  but  in  the  path  of 
duty,  guidid  by  a  sense  of  what  is  right,  or  what 
seems  to  be  right,  there  is  no  middle  course.  I  have 
been  charged  among  other  worse  things,  with  pro- 
posing that  half  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church 
should  be  elected  by  the  Episcopalians  of  the  city 
at  large.  I  impute  the  misstatement  to  the  ig- 
norance of  the  accuser.  But  not  to  add  more, 
Mr.  Chairman,  I  w^oul  1  forget  and  forgive  all 
the  groundless  assaults  which  have  fallen  upon 
the  much  abused  and  little  read  proposition  I 
have  submitted.  That  cause  is  poor  indeed, 
which  originating  in  honorable  purposes,  sus- 
tained by  truth,  upheld  by  justice,  and  looking 
to  peace  and  reconciliation  among  Chrtstian 
men,  has  not  strength  enough  to  stand  upon  its 
own  feet,  and  to  meet  and  overcome  bitterness  of 
speech  and  error  of  judgment. 

Mr.  Kelly:  Mr.  Chairman!  Before  the  ques- 
tion is  taken  I  desire  to  say  a  few  words  upon 
this  subject.  It  was  my  intention  to  have  made 
some  remarks  upon  the  propositions  before  the 
Senate  had  time  permitted  me  to  do  so;  and  even 
at  this  late  hour  I  feel  it  my  duty  not  to  remain 
entirely  silent.  I  regret  exceedingly.  Sir,  that 
during  the  course  and  in  the  heat  of  this  debate, 
unworthy  motives  should  have  been  attributed 
either  to  the  Committee  of  the  Senate,  or  to  the 
Vestry  and  the  friends  of  Trinity  Church. 

The  investigations  made  by  the  Committee 
have,  in  my  view,  been  justified  by  the  facts 
which  they  have  elicited.  They  have  discharged 
the  duties  entrusted  to  the  well  and  faithfully, 
and  deserve  the  thanks  of  the  Senate  for  the  labor 
they  have  bestowed  upon  the  subject. 

It  is  c  ear  by  the  evidence  betore  us,  that  the 
funds  of  Trinity  Church  have  been  administered 


by  men  of  the  strictest  integrity.  But  it  can  be 
plainly  seen  that  throughout  their  management, 
the  great  fault  has  been  a  desire  to  suffer  the 
property  to  accumulate  in  their  hands,  in  order 
that  at  a  future  time  they  might  do  great  good  in 
the  cause  of  religion.  In  accordance  with  this 
policy  we  find  that  when  Trinity  built  her  mag- 
nificent edifice — for  which  I  praise  and  honor 
her — fhe  thought  she  could  pay  for  her  building 
out  of  her  income,  without  parting  with  any 
portion  of  her  property.  She  has  also  continued 
from  year  to  year  her  princely  gifts  to  other 
churches,  and  has  sought  to  meet  this  demand 
upon  her  also,  by  her  income  alone.  Now,  al- 
though by  the  tailing  in  of  leases,  in  time,  her 
income  will  reach  an  enormous  sum, — probably 
$300,000 — yet  it  has  been  inadequate  at  the  pre- 
sent time  to  meet  these  charges  upon  it,  and  she 
has  therefore  fastened  upon  herself  a  large  debt. 

The  gentlemen  who  are  here  seeking  this  legis- 
lation in  regard  to  Trinity  have  not  approved  of 
this  policy.  They  have  believed  Trinity  might 
do  more  good  with  her  large  estates  under  wiser 
management.  They  are  all  true  sons  of  the 
Church,  and  good  Christians;  and  they  have 
sought  to  bring  Trinity  to  what  they  believe  to 
be  a  sense  of  her  duty.  Perhaps  if  Trinity  had 
pursued  a  different  financial  policy,  they  would 
never  have  been  heard  of  here.  They  can  have 
no  personal  motives  to  gratify,  and  can  only  be 
influenced  by  what  they  sincerely  believe  to  be 
the  good  of  the  Church. 

There  is  one  idea.  Sir,  that  I  think  has  not 
been  sufficiently  enforced  on  the  minds  of  Senat- 
ors. Much  has  been  said  about  the  difference 
between  a  territorial  parish  and  a  spiritual  parish ; 
but  it  should  be  remembered  that  when  this  char- 
ter was  issued  and  when  these  grants  were  maile, 
a  territorial  parish  was  meant  whenever  in  those 
instruments  a  parish  was  mentioned.  At  that 
time,  the  parish  of  Trinity  included  the  whole 
of  New  York  City.  And  let  me  ask  here,  if  no 
revolution  had  taken  place,  and  if  there  had  been 
no  severance  from  the  mother-country,  how  would 
the  property  granted  to  Trinity  have  been  used  ? 
Can  there  be  a  doubt  thai  every  Episcopal  church 
would  have  participated  in  the  fund?  Trinity 
Church  would  still  have  remained  the  parish 
church.  She  would  have  had  her  fifty  or  more 
chapels,  it  is  true;  but  they  would  all  have  been 
attached  to  Trinity  as  are  her  present  chapels. 

Immediately  after  the  revolutionary  war,  no 
one  foresaw  at  once  the  difliculties  that  must  en- 
sue on  account  of  the  separatioii  between  church 
and  state.  In  the  course  of  time  parishes  ap- 
parently independent  of  and  disconnected  from 
Trinity  were  formed;  and  when,  prior  to  1814, 
the  difficulties  between  these  parishes  became  so 
apparent  as  to  require  some  attention  at  the  hands 
of  the  state,  the  Legislature  was  applied  to,  and 
the  act  now  complained  of  was  passed.  It  is  im- 
possible for  any  emergency  to  arise  in  the  body 
politic,  but  some  power  can  be  found  sufficient 
to  remedy  it.  The  parties  came  to  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  state  for  relief;  and  I  believe  that 
the  act  ot  1814  would  have  been  constitutional 


94 


and  just,  if  it  had  not  divested  these  corporators 
of  their  rights.  If  it  did  divest  thorn  of  rights 
to  which  they  were  entitled  under  the  original 
charter  and  subsequent  grants,  it  was  uncon- 
stitulional  and  unjust. 

Novi'  the  law  of  the  Senator  from  the  6th  (Mr. 
Brooks)  seeks  to  give  these  rights,  under  certain 
restrictions,  to  all  who  were  invested  to  them  by 
the  original  charter.  It  is  a  compromise,  and  in 
my  judgment  a  fair  one.  between  the  contesting 
parties.  As  such  I  shall  support  it,  and  as  such 
I  regard  it  as  entitled  to  the  favorable  considera- 
tion of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Madden:  Mr.  Chairman:  This  matter 
has  been  so  fully  discussed,  that  even  were  it  not 
so  late  an  hour,  I  should  only  occupy  very  briefly 
the  time  of  the  Senate.  It  is  a  subject  of  mag- 
nitude and  importance  upon  which  we  are  called 
to  act,  and  it  should  not  be  passed  on  hurriedly, 
and  without  calm,  full  and  motive  consideration. 
I  think  that  with  the  immense  amount  of  busi- 
ness we  have  here  upon  our  hands,  it  is  not 
proper  to  decide  this  question  at  the  present  ses- 
sion of  the  Legis'ature.  It  has  not  been  properly 
discussed  by  the  Episcopalians  in  New  York 
City,  and  throughout  the  state;  as  it  certair.ly 
ought  to  be  before  being  passed  upon  by  us,  even 
providing,  that  we  have  any  right  to  legislate  at 
all  in  the  matter.  It  is  true  that  we  find  here  a 
spontaneous  expression  from  the  length  and 
breadth  of  the  state  against  the  laying  of  any 
sacrilegious  hand  upon  this  church;  but  this  ex- 
pression, universal  as  it  seems,  gives  but  a  faint 
conception  of  the  oppofiition  which  would  really 
spring  up  all  over  the  state,  were  proper  op- 
portunity afforded  for  its  disphy. 

The  question  now  before  us,  the  bill  of  the 
Senator  from  the  6th  (Mr.  Brooks)  has  been  so 
fully  and  so  ably  argued  here,  that  but  little  is 
left  for  any  person  to  add.  Vet  there  is  one  point 
in  relation  to  that  substitute  for  the  proposition 
of  the  special  committee,  which  occurs  to  me, 
and  which  I  desire  to  bring  to  the  attention  of 
the  Senate.  It  is  this.  Every  statement  that 
has  been  made  here  and  before  the  committee; 
every  argument  that  has  been  adduced;  every 
grant  and  law  that  has  been  quoted,  shows  con- 
clusively that  the  whole  of  this  property  belongs 
either  to  the  Episcopalians  of  Trinity  parish, 
or  to  all  the  Episcopalians  of  New  York  City. 
Now  both  these  parties  claim  to  be  the  rightful 
owners  of  the  property.  These  rival  claimants 
may,  if  they  please,  compromise  between  them- 
selves; but  from  whence  do  we  derive  the  power 
to  force  a  compromise  upon  them?  If  the  estates 
belong  to  Trinity  Corporation,  they  are  hers  en- 
tirely; hers  to  control  and  to  use  as  she  sees  (it. 
It  seems  monstrous  that  we  should  assume  to  take 
hold  of  the  property  of  the  church  by  force,  and 
say  how  it  shall  be  dislributed.  It  is  the  first 
stepping  stone  to  that  anti-republican  doctrine, 
the  interference  of  the  state  in  the  affairs  of  the 
church. 

Holding  these  views,  I  regard  the  substitute  of 
the  Senator  from  the  Cth  (Mr.  Brooks)  as  more 
objectionable,  more  monstrous,  J  may  say,  than 


even  the  original  bill  proposed  by  the  special 

committee.  If  the  estates  of  Trinity  belong  to 
the  Episcopalians  of  the  city  of  New  York,  they 
should  have  them  all,  and  enjoy  thetn  without 
reserve.  There  can  be  no  half-way  measure  of 
justice  in  the  afl^airs.  It  is  either  one  thing  or 
the  other.  No  court  would  decide  the  controversy 
as  we  are  called  upon  to  decide  it.  There  is  not 
a  judicial  tribunal  in  existence  that  would  say 
one  half  of  this  property  shall  go  to  one  claimant, 
and  the  other  half  shall  be  enjoyed  by  the  other 
claimants.  The  law  would  decide,  if  called 
upon,  simply  to  whom  the  property  belongs;  and 
would  give  it  to  the  rightful  owner  whether  that 
owner  was  the  congresration  of  Trinity  Church, 
or  the  entire  Episcopal  inhabitants  of  the  city. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  can  find  no  good  reason  in 
any  of  the  arguments  which  have  been  used  by 
the  opponents  of  Trinity  Church,  why  an  appeal 
should  not  be  made  to  the  courts  of  law,  to  test 
the  constitutionality  of  the  law  of  1814.  Among 
those  opponents  are  men  of  ample  means  and 
marked  ability;  and  whether  they  cover  the 
wealth  of  Trinity,  or  seek  in  gnod  faith  the  re- 
stitution of  what  they  believe  to  be  their  violated 
rights,  I  can  see  no  good  reason  why  they  should 
not  make  their  application  to  the  court.s  rather 
than  to  the  Legislature.  Certainly  if  they  have 
suffered  wrong,  the  law  has  power  to  right  them, 
and  it  can  require  no  new  act  of  legislation  to 
restore  to  them  all  those  privileges  of  which  they 
claim  to  have  been  illegally  deprived. 

Sir.  I  feel  it  incumbent  upon  me  to  state,  be- 
fore closing  my  remarks,  that  I  was  much  pained 
to  listen  to  the  opening  ."-emarks  of  the  Senator 
from  the  3d  (Mr.  Sickles).  That  honorable 
gentleman  thought  fit,  after  his  eloquent  and  ef- 
fective introduction,  to  charge  the  political  party 
to  which  I  am  proud  to  belong,  with  the  desire 
to  lay  sacrilegious  hands  upon  this  property  of 
Trinity  Church.  For  the  honor  and  credit  of 
the  Republican  party,  Sir,  I  am  bound  to  re- 
pudiate that  assertion. 

Mr.  Sickles:  I  said  that  the  leaders  of  the 
party  were  the  active  men  in  the  attack  upon 
Trinity  church. 

Mr.  Madden:  I  deny,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
even  the  leaders  of  the  party  are  the  foes  of 
Trinity.  Some  self  constituted  leaders  may 
strive  to  lead  the  party  off  into  a  crusade  against 
this  church,  from  personal  or  other  motives;  but 
I  entirely  deny  their  power  to  do  so.  I  do  not 
desire  to  charge  the  honorable  Senator  (Mr. 
Sickles)  with  having  so  shaped  his  remarks  as 
to  give  them  political  effect  in  the  future  elec- 
tions in  the  parish  of  Trinity,  situated  as  it  is, 
within  his  district;  but  I  must  say  that  I  do  not 
think  the  charge  he  has  made  againsv  the  repub- 
lican party,  comes  with  a  good  grace  from  a 
leaning  member  of  that  organization  that  would 
have  wrested  the  brightest  jewel  from  the 
crown  of  the  Queen  of  Spain,  by  force,  provided 
she  was  unwilling  to  part  with  it  for  an  equiva- 
lent. I  ask  him.  Sir,  if  it  becomes  him,  now 
opposed  to  spoliation  in  this  instance,  but  so  re- 
cently the  active  advocate  of  spoliation,  to  make 


95 


this  sweeping  charge  against  a  large  and  honora- 
ble organization? 

Mr.  SiCLKEs;  I  hope  that  the  vote  to  he  ta- 
ken on  this  bill  in  this  place,  will  show  that  I 
have  done  great  injustice  to  the  party  to  which 
the  honorable  gentleman  belongs. 

Mr.  Madden-.  I  hope  .so  too;  but  lean  not 
conceal  from  myself  the  fact  that  there  is  danger 
and  men  against  whom  so  groundless  a  charge  is 
made  uiay  suffer  their  personal  feelings  to  sway 
them  so  far  as  to  induce  them  to  be  unwilling 
that  the  honorable  Senator  (Mr.  Sickles)  should 
win  what  he  seems  to  regard  a  political  victory 
by  the  defeat  of  this  bill.  It  is  on  these  grounds 
that  I  make  these  remarks;  but  I  sincerely  hope 
that  no  Senator  will  be  influenced  in  the  vote  he 
casts  by  any  stinging  remarks  or  innuendoes  cast 
out  by  political  opponents  in  the  course  of  this 
debate.  I  ain  simply  rebuking  what  I  consider 
to  be  an  unjust  aspersion  upon  the  republicans  of 
this  State.  I  think  that  party  is  not  an  aggra- 
grian  party.  I  believe  that  it  respects  the  rights 
of  property;  that  it  respects  the  laws  of  the 
country;  and  that  is  favor  of  man  owning 
himself.  Can  the  gentleman  (Mr.  Sickles)  say 
as  much  for  the  party  to  which  he  belongs? 

I  have  already  denied,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
the  leaders  of  the  republican  party  are  the  foes 
of  Trinity.  I  need  only  to  point  to  facts  to 
show  the  injustice  of  such  a  charge.  If  we  look 
for  a  moment  at  those  about  this  capitol  as  well 
as  around  this  circle  who  are  arrayed  for  or 
against  this  bill,  we  shall  find  on  both  sides, 
leaders  of  all  the  political  organizations  of  the 
day.  We  shall  see  here  an  eminent  American 
(Mr.  Brooks)  favoring  the  spoliation  of  the 
church,  and  there  another  distinguished  gentle- 
man of  the  same  political  faith  (Mr.  Hale)  op- 
posed to  the  partition  of  her  estates.  In  like 
manner  we  find  leading  D^'mocrats  and  leading 
Republicans  cn  opposite  sides  in  this  controver- 
sy. It  is  no  secret.  Sir,  that  the  Governor  of 
the  State,  who  all  are  proud  to  recognize  as  a 
leader  of  the  Republican  army,  is  one  of  the 
most  uncompromising  opponents  of  this  scheme 
for  the  spoliation  of  Trinity  church. 

I  repeat,  Sir,  that  I  make  these  comments  up- 
on the  remarks  of  the  honorable  Senator  (Mr. 
Sickles)  only  in  justice  to  my  own  political 
friends  and  the  members  of  the  American  organ- 
ization ;  but  I  can  not  and  do  not  believe  that  any 
Senator,  on  the  votes  he  casts  upon  this  most  im- 
portant bill,  will  be  influenced  in  any  degree  by 
personal  or  political  considerations.  For  myself, 
Sir,  I  am  ready  at  once  to  close  this  debate,  and 
vote  upon  the  merits  of  the  question. 

Mk.  BriggS:  Mr.  Chairman— I  move  to 
amend  the  bill  now  before  the  Senate,  by  allow- 
ing one  church  warden  and  twelve  vestrymen  to 
be  elected  by  Trinity  parish,  and  one  church 
warden  and  eight  vestrymen  by  the  parishes  in 
the  city  of  New  York  outside  of  Trinity. 

I  propose  this  amendment  because  I  deem  it 
but  just  to  give  the  controlling  influence  in  the 
vestry  to  Trinity  herself. 

The  amendment  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  8  to  14. 


The  chairman  then  declared  the  question  to  be 
on  the  substitute  offered  by  the  Senator  from  the 
6th  (Mr.  Brooks),  for  the  bill  presented  by  the 
special  committee. 

Mr.  Sickles:  Do  I  not  understand  that  the 
Senator  is  going  to  modify  his  bill  in  some  res- 
pects, before  the  vote  upon  its  adoption  is  taken? 

Mr.  Brooks:  The  modification  has  been 
made  already. 

Mr.  Sickles:  Pray  what  is  the  modifica- 
tion? 

Mr.  Brooks:  The  amendment  of  section  3 
of  the  bill,  by  the  provision  that  the  residue  of 
the  income  and  proceeds  of  the  estates  of  Trini- 
ty shall  be  applied  "  to  the  purpose  of  the 
original  grant,"  instead  of  "  to  the  support  and 
extension  of  religion  and  religious  education  in 
the  city  and  state  of  New  York,"  as  the  bill,  as 
introduced,  provided. 

Mr.  Sickles:  Why  this  appears  to  me  no 
modification,  but  an  entire  alteration  in  the  main 
principle  of  the  bill.  Pardon  me,  but  it  cer- 
tainly seems  like  a  pious  fraud.  Here  we  have 
been  for  days  discussing  one  bill,  and  arguing  on 
its  merits,  and  when  the  vote  is  to  be  taken,  we 
find  another  bill  suddenly  thrust  before  us. 

Mr.  Brooks:  It  is  the  same  bill.  The  Sena- 
tor is  mistaken. 

Mr.  Sickles:  It  looks  to  me  very  diflTerent. 
It  is  certainly  not  the  bill  we  have  been  discuss- 
ing, for  the  main  feature  of  that  bill  has  been 
abandoned. 

Mr.  Upham:  I  thought  the  Senator  did  not 
understand  what  he  had  been  talking  about. 

Mr.  Sickles:  The  Senator  from  the  28th 
(Mr.  Upham),  can  scarcely  be  admitted  as  a  fair 
judge  on  that  point,  for  the  reason  that  he  did 
not  hear  my  argument.  He  has  been  absent 
from  the  Senate  during  the  debate,  his  business 
being  the  mere  mechanical  one  of  walking  in 
and  recording  his  vote  when  required  to  do  so. 

The  question  upon  the  adoption  of  the  substi- 
tute offered  by  Mr.  Brooks,  the  same  was  adopt- 
ed by  ayes  18,  nays  8. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Spencer,  the  committee  of 
the  whole  then,  at  1  1-2  o'clock  in  the  morning, 
rose  and  reported  the  bill  to  the  Senate,  and 
recommended  its  passage. 

In  the  Senate,  the  president  put  the  question 
on  agreeing  with  the  committee's  report,  and 
ordering  the  bill  to  a  third  reading. 

Mr.  Sickles:  Mr,  President— This  question 
is  now  out  of  the  committee  of  the  whole,  and 
is  not  therefore  in  a  |  osition  to  interfere  with  or 
obstruct  any  other  business  before  the  Senate,  or 
further  to  consume  our  time.  But  it  is  very 
desirable  that  the  vote  should  be  taken  at  a  time 
when  the  Senate  is  in  a  condition  to  form  a  cor- 
rect judgment  upon  its  merits,  and  not  at  the 
close  of  a  long  and  wearying  session,  and  at 
such  an  hour  as  this.  It  is  also  very  desirable 
that  there  should  be  a  full  expression  of  the 
sentiments  of  the  Senate,  and  it  is  well  known 
that  one  Senator  entertaining  the  same  views  of 
this  question  as  I  entertain,  is  unavoidably  ab- 
sent from  his  seat.    I  hope  therefore  that  the 


96 


Senate  will  see  the  propriety  of  a  postponement 
of  further  proceedings  at  this  time,  and  I  move, 
Bir,  to  lay  the  motion  to  agree  with  the  commit- 
tee's report  upon  the  table. 

Mr.  Brooks:  Oh,  I  hope  that  will  not  be 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  Madden:  Mr.  President,  I  move  the 
indefinite  postponement  of  the  subject. 

Mr.  Sickles:  The  motion  to  lay  the  motion 
agreeing  with  the  report  takes  precedent  of 
that. 

Mr.  Upham:  Mr.  President  I  can  see  no 
good  reason  for  any  further  postponement  of 
this  question.  There  are  thirty  Senators  here 
now,  and  I  should  think  that  was  quite  enough. 
It's  enough  to  satisfy  me,  at  least.  There  is  no 
knowing  when  Mr.  Hale  will  be  here.  At  all 
events  he  will  not  be  here  tomorrow,  and  then 
we  shall  have  the  same  excuse  over  again.  I 
think  we  have  spent  enough  time  over  it  already, 
and  I  am  anxious  to  get  it  out  of  the  way. 

Mr.  Sickles:  I  would  inform  the  Senator 
from  the  28th  (Mr.  Upham),  that  Mr.  Hale  will 
be  here  tomorrow.  He  has  telegraphed  me  to 
that  effect.  Indecent  haste  under  such  circum- 
stances is  inexcusable. 

Mr.  Spknoer:  There  is  no  haste  about  it. — 
I  hope  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  will  be  vot- 
ed down. 

The  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  then  lost 
by  ayes  12,  nays  18,  as  follows: 

Ayk3 — Meaers  Belliiiger,  Briggp,  Huntington,  Mad- 
den, Nichols,  CP.  Smilh,  .J.  A.  Smiili,  Sickles,  _Sweet, 
Towne,  Untier,  Wadswortli — 12. 

Noj:b— Mesnrs.  Bradford,  Brooks,  Cuyler,  Darling, 
Ferdon,  Halated,  Harcourt,  Hotohiviss-  Kelly,  Lee,  Nox- 
on,  Patereon,  Petty,  Ramsey,  Rider,  A.  M.  Smitn,  Spen- 
cer, Upliam — 18. 

The  vote  was  then  taken  on  Mr.  Madden's 
motion  to  postpone  indefinitely,  and  the  same 
was  lost,  by  ayes  14,  nays  17,  as  follows: 

AiPF,3 — Messrs.  Biilinger,  Bradford,  Brigga,  Cnyler 
Huntington,  Madden,  Nichols,  C.  P.  Sinllh,  J.  A.  Smilb, 
SicKl  8,  Sweet,  Towue,  Uahor,  Wadswortli — 14. 

NoKu— Messrs.  Brooks,  Darling,  Ferdon, Halated, Har. 
court,  Hotchkias,  Kelly,  h'io,  Noxon,  Pateraon,  Petty, 
Ramsey,  Riotiardson,  'Kider,  A.  M.  Smith,  Speacer,  Up- 
ham— 17. 

Absent— Mr.  Hale  (in  favor  of  indefinite  pospon- 
m'^Tit) — 1. 

Mr.  Madden  moved  that  the  Senate  do  now 
adjourn.  The  motion  was  lost  by  ayes  11,  nays 
19,  as  follows: 

Ayks— Messrs.  Bradford,  Brigga.  Huntington,  Mad- 
den, Nich  )ls,  Petty,  J.  A.  Smith,  Sickles,  Towno,  Usher 
and  VVadsworth — 11 

Noes — Messrs.  Bellinger,  Brooks,  Cuyler,  Darling, 
Ferdon,  Halsted,  H  iroourt,  Hotcnkias,  Kelly,  I-ise,  Nox- 
on, Patterson,  Ramsey,  Ricliardson,  Rider,  Smith,  Spen- 
cer, Sweet  and  Upham — 19. 

Mr.  Briggs  mo\ed  his  amendment  proposed  in' 
committee  of  the  whole,  to  give  Trinity  12  ves- 
trymen instead  of  10.  Lost, 

The  President  then  put  the  question  upon 
agreeing  to  the  report  of  the  committee,  and  the 
same  was  agreed  to,  and  the  bill  ordered  to  a 
third  reading,  by  ayes  20,  nays  11,  as  follows: 

Ayks — Messrs.  Brooks,  Cuyler,  Darling,  Ferdon,  llal- 
Bted,  Harcourt,  Hotchkiss,  Kelly,  I<ee,  Noxon,  P.ilerson, 
Petty,  Ramsey,  Richardson,  Rider,  A.  IM.  Smith,  C.  P. 
Smith,  Spencer,  Towne,  Upham — 20- 

NoES— Mesare.  Bellinger,  Bradford,  Briggs,  Hunting- 


ton, Madden, Nlohol«,  J.  A.  Smith, SiotlCB, Sweet, Usher, 

Wadswortli — 11. 

Mr.  Madden  moved  that  the  final  vote  on  the 
passage  of  the  bill  betaken  at  11  A.  M,,  to- 
morrow. Lost, 

Mr.  Madden  then  moved  to  adjourn.  Lost. 

Mr.  Spencer:  Mr.  President  I  move  that 
the  bill  now  have  its  third  reading. 

Mr.  Sickles:  Where  do  you  get  your  right 
for  such  action?  The  motion  is  not  in  order. — 
The  rules  forbid  it;  and  unless  you  are  willing  to 
override  the  rules,  you  can  not  read  the  bill  a 
third  time  now. 

Mr,  Lee:    Then  I  move  to  suspend  the  rules. 

Mr.  Madden:  I  rise  to  a  point  of  order. — 
By  the  40th  rule,  no  rule  can  be  suspended  unless 
on  one  day's  previous  notice,  without  unanimous 
consent;  and  I  object  to  the  motion. 

Mr.  Upham:  I  hope  that  somehow  or  other 
the  vote  will  be  taken  to-night 

Mr.  Spencer:  The  opponents  of  the  bill 
agreed  and  bound  themselves  to  allow  the  vote 
to  be  taken  to-night. 

Mr.  Sickles:  The  promise  has  been  redeem- 
ed in  every  respect.  The  vote  which  was  con- 
templated— the  vote  on  the  committee's  report 
has  been  taken.  It  was  never  proposed  by  the 
friends  of  the  bill,  not  supposed  by  its  opponents, 
that  the  bill  was  to  be  pressed  to  a  final  passage 
to-night.     No  such  agreement  was  in  the  bond. 

Mr.  Madden:  It  has  not  been  my  motive  to 
delay  the  final  action  upon  this  question.  I  have 
been  as  anxious  as  any  other  Senator  to  have  it 
disposed  of  and  off  our  hands.  But  I  do  protest 
against  this  action  of  the  majority  as  unjust,  un- 
parliamentary and  oppressive. 

Mr.  Upham:  No  person  accuses  you  of  a  de- 
sire to  delay  action  on  the  bill;  but  why  oppose 
that  action  now? 

Mr.  Ramsey:  Mr.  President,  I  rise  to  a  point 
of  order.  A  resolution  was  adopted  at  a  former 
meeting,  to  take  the  final  vote  to-night.  This 
must  be  done  unless  that  resolution  is  recon- 
sidered. 

Mr.  Sickles:  The  honorable  Senator  (Mr. 
Ramsey)  is  laboring  under  a  misapprehension. 
No  resolution  was  adopted  on  the  subject.  There 
was  an  understanding  that  the  vote  in  the  Com- 
mittee should  be  taken  this  evening,  but  no  sug- 
gestion to  take  the  vote  on  the  final  passage  of 
the  bill  was  even  made.  Now,  Mr  P'-esident, 
while  I  have  expressed,  and  desire  again  to  ex- 
press my  obligations  to  the  Senate  for  the  per- 
sonal courtesies  extended  to  myself,  during  the 
course  of  this  debate;  yet  I  do  not  intend  to  con- 
cede that  my  side  of  the  question  has  received 
any  favors  at  the  hands  of  this  body.  More  time 
has  been  occupied  during  the  debate  by  the  other 
side,  than  by  us. 

Mr.  Brooks:  Not  so  much  by  five  hours. 

Mr.  Sickles:  Well,  Sir,  gentlemen  may  have 
kept  a  sufficiently  accurate  account  to  be  able  to 
calculate  within  an  hour,  or  within  five  minutes; 
but  I  speak  from  the  judgment  I  formed  by 
reading  the  debate  as  reported  in  the  public  prints, 
during  my  absence  in  a  distant  city. 


97 


KMr.  Brooks:  If  the  Senator  will  allow  me  to 
Interrupt  him.  I  think  that  I  can  make  a  sugges- 
lion  that  may  be  acceptable  to  all  parties.  I  de- 
lire  to  move  that  the  final  vote  shall  be  taken  on 
the  bill  at  12  to-morrow. 

Mr.  Sickles:  I,  for  one,  should  object  to  that 
while  I  am  quite  willing  that  you  should  fi<  some 
time  for  the  final  passage  of  this  bill,  I  am  not 
inclined  to  make  any  compromise  of  my  right  as 
one  of  the  minority  by  binding  myself  down  to 
my  such  arbitrary  arrangement.  I  now  move 
that  the  Senate  adjourn.  Lost. 

Mr.  Spencer  :  I  now  move,  Mr.  President, 
|kat  thfe  bill  have  its  third  reading. 
PMr.  Cuyler's  name  being  called;  he  asked 
■  be  e.xcuseJ  for  voting.  He  said : 
F  Mr.  President!  1  have  not  had  an  opportunity 
m  Committee  of  the  Whole  or  in  the  Senate,  of 
inaUing  some  remarks  which  I  desired  to  make, 
and  to  suggest  an  amendment  to  the  bill  now  be- 
fore us.  I  have  on  this  account  been  somewhat 
unwilling  to  press  this  vote  to-night.  Still  a 
great  deal  of  time  has  been  consumed  over  it.  and 
we  have  a  vast  amount  of  very  important  business 
DOW  before  us.  While  I  desired  to  have  the  op- 
portunity to  express  my  vi-ws  upon  one  or  two 
points,  I  yet  shall  not  offer  any  further  impedi- 
ment, as  far  as  1  am  concerned,  to  the  final  action 
of  the  Senate.  I  withdraw  my  request  to  be 
excused,  and  vote  in  the  affirmative. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Spencer  then  prevailed,  by 
Ayes  22.  Nays  9 — as  fi  Hows: 

AiEa — Meiiors.  BeUlnger,  Brooks,  Cuyle',  D.irlirg, 
Ferdon,  Hoisted  Harconrt  Hotchkies,  Kelly,  Lee, 
Nicho  B,  Noxon,  PaHrsoD,  Petty,  hamsey,  Kiol»rdson, 
Rider,  A.  M.  Smuh,  Spencer,  Sweet,  Towne,  Upham 

k  Nats — Messrs.  Bradford,  Bnges,  Huntington,  Mad. 
den,  C.  P.  Smith,  J.  A.  Smith,  Sickles,  Usher,  Wads- 
wcr  h— 9. 

Mr.  Sickles:  I  rise,  Mr.  President,  to  a  ques- 
tion of  order.  I  refer  the  Senate  to  the  Itth 
nile,  which  says  that  "no  bill  shall  be  read  a 
third  time  out  of  its  regular  order,  tior  on  the 
tame  day  on  icliich  it  is  ordered  to  a  third  reading^ 
without  a  two-thirds  vote. 

The  President  ruled  the  point  of  order  not 
veil  taken. 

Mr.  Madden  pressed  his  point  of  order  that  a 
«spensiou  of  the  rules  w  as  nece.-sary  in  order  to 
read  the  bill  a  third  time,  and  that  it  required 
ananimous  consent  so  to  suspend. 

The  President  decided  that  a  suspension  of  the 
rnlfS  was  not  necessary. 

The  vote  upon  the  final  passage  of  the  bill  was 
.hen  taken. 

Mr.  Rich.\RDSOn's  name  lieing  called,  he  de- 
ed to  say  a  word  by  way  of  leason  for  the 
:e3  he  had  given  and  now  intended  to  give  on 
.^is  important  question.  The  reluctance  he  had 
manifested  in  voting  upon  the  motion  to  report 
;he  bi  1  to  the  Senate,  arose  from  the  f  ict  that 
iere  was  on><  feature  in  the  bill  he  did  not  ap- 
irove.  By  the  second  and  third  sections  the  Le- 
;islature  assumes  to  give  directions  to  a  religious 
ori^oration  as  to  the  management  of  its  tempo- 
alities.  Yet  being  so  fully  convinced  of  the 
njuitice  of  the  act  of  1814,  and  believing  that 


the  confiscating  and  disfranchising  policy  con 
ceived  by  Trinity  in  1812  and  consummated  iu 
ISn,  to  be  manifestly  wrong  and  unjust, 
he  felt  comp-^lled  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  vote 
as  he  had  and  sh  11,  that  in  some  manner 
the  Legislature  of  the  state  might  redeem  itself 
from  the  disgraceful  act  of  that  year.  Although 
this  bill  did  not  meet  his  views  as  well  as  that 
reported  by  the  committee,  yet  it  dii  in  some 
measure  make  atonement  for  the  act  of  1814. 
He  voted  aye. 

Mr.  C.  P.  S-^iith's  mme  having  been  called, 
he  said  he  had  been  absent  all  day,  having  been 
delayed  by  a  detention  of  the  cars.  The  suliject 
had  been  one  of  considerible  anxiety  to  him. 
He  had  hoped  that  the  bill,  after  being  reported 
to  the  Senate,  would  have  been  laid  aside  until 
to-morrow,  but  inasmuch  as  h's  vote  would  ap- 
parently make  nomaleriil  difference  in  the  re- 
uU  he  asked  to  be  excused  from  voting. 

The  Senate  refused  to  excuse  .Mr.  €mith,  and 
he  voted  in  the  affirmative. 

The  result  was  announced  in  favor  of  the  pas 
sage  of  the  bill  by  ayes  19,  nays  12,  as  follows: 

ArES— Messrs.  Brooks,  Cnyler,  Darling,  Ferdon,  Hal- 
eted.  Harcour  ,  Hoicbkisi-,  KelK ,  Lee,  Noxon,  P  tterson, 
Petty.  Knms  ly,  Richardson,  Rider,  A.  il.  .Smith,  C-i*. 
Smitcp,  Spencer,  Upbam — 19. 

Noes — Messrs.  Bellinger,  Bradford,  Brisrcfs  Hunting, 
ton.  Madden,  Ni'  hols,J.  A.  Smith,  Sickles,  Swe»,To»De, 
Usher,  Wadswotlh— 12. 

The  Senate  then,  at  3  o'clock,  A.  M.,  ad- 
journed. 

In  the  Assembly,  the  Senate  hill  was  referred 
to  the  standing  committee  on  Charitable  anil  Re- 
ligious Societies,  consisting  of  Messrs.  Bell, 
Somerville,  Rhodes,  Maheci  and  Kimmey. 

The  committee  held  several  meetings,  and  ar- 
guments were  maile  against  the  bill  by  the  Hon. 
S.  B  Ruggles.  of  New  York,  and  Ju.lge  Parker 
of  Albany ;  and  in  favor  of  the  bill  by  Mr.  Porter, 
of  Albany.  After  devoting  considerable  time  to 
the  examination  of  the  merits  of  the  question, 
the  committee  were  unable  to  come  to  a  conclu- 
sion favorable  to  the  bill,  standing  two  for  re- 
porting it  favorably  to  the  House,  and  three 
against  it.  Those  in  favor  of  the  bill  were: 
Messrs.  Bell  and  Somerville;  those  opposed  to  it 
were,  Messrs.  Rhodes,  Mahen  and  Ki  nmey. 

In  the  mean  time,  the  opponents  of  Trinity 
church  were  not  idle.  With  a  strong  and  efli- 
cient  lobby  force  they  constantly  plied  the  mem- 
bers of  the  House,  and  endeavored  to  persuade 
them  into  action  upon  the  bill,  notwithstanding  the 
impracticability  of  bestowing  any  time  upon  the 
discussion  of  its  merits,  in  corwequence  of  the 
near  approach  of  the  close  of  the  session,  and  the 
pressure  of  seveial  important  public  measures 
yet  unacted  upon  in  the  House.  A  number  of 
leailing  political  lobby  men,  who  were  supposed 
to  un  lerstand  the  sentiments  of  members,  were 
employed  in  making  out  tally  lists  of  the  votes, 
as  they  imagined  ihey  would  be  cast;  and  the 
friends  of  the  Senate  bill  used  every  exertion  in 
their  power  to  complete  the  success  of  their  ef- 
fort to  obtain  possession  of  Trinity's  estate. 


98 


There  is  no  doubt  that  they  were  misled  in  a 
great  measure  by  the  unwillingness  of  members 
to  say  ONtfht  against  taking  up  ihe  bill,  in  con- 
sequence of  Iheir  (lisiiiclinatioM  to  offend  the  lead- 
ing; polilicians  who  had  taken  it  under  their 
fostering  care ;  allhough  a  large  nurnber  of  the 
reprcsentiitives  had  resolved  upon  opposing  it. — 
Be  ih.it  as  it  may,  it  is  certain  that  the  enemies 
of  Trinity  were  for  some  time  confident  of  final 
success. 

At  length,  on  April  14th,  Mr.  Bell  reported 
the  bill  from  the  committee  for  the  consideration 
of  the  House,  the  majority  of  the  committee  re- 
fusing to  recomrnerrd  i'.s  passage. 

Mr.  Sherman  moved  to  make  the  bill  a  special 
order  for  ;he  next  day  at  4  P.  M. ;  but  the  House, 
by  an  emphatic  vote,  refused,  and  the  bill  took 
its  regular  place  on  the  general  order. 


On  April  iGth  Mr.  Sherman  made  an  attemit 
to  take  the  bill  from  its  pla-e  on  the  general  o(l, 
der  and  refer  it  to  the  first  committee  of  thA 
whole.  ' 

Mr.  Cox  moved  to  lay  the  motion  on  the  table, 
and  the  sime  was  carried  by  a  decisive  vote.  i 

On  the  17th,  the  day  prior  io  the  final  ad-| 
journment  of  the  Legislature,  Mr.  B  Owen,  at' 
the  evt-nirrg  session,  moveil  to  order  the  Trinity 
church  bill  to  a  third  reading  at  once,  ahhoujn 
it  had  never  been  discussed  or  considered  in  com- 
miitee  of  the  whole. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Cox,  the  house  a^ain,  by  an 
emphatic  vote,  refused  to  take  up  the  bill  by  lay- 
ing Mr  Owens'  resolution  on  the  table. 

No  further  open  attempt  was  made  to  force 
action  upon  the  bill  in  the  Assembly. 


TO  THE  SENATORS 


OF  THE 

SEMTE  OF  THE  STATE  OF  NEW  TOM: 

BEING 

An  Examination  aud  Exposure  of  the  "  Eeport  of  the 
Select  Committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  Eeport 
of  Trinity  Church  made  in  1855,"  made  "in  Senate, 
January  29th,  1857,"  and  re-committed  for  further 
inquiry. 

B7  A 

MEMBER  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 
February  12,  1857. 


The  Select  Committee  of  the  Senate  of  New  York,  to 
whom  was  referred  the  Report  of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church, 
in  reply  to  the  Resolutions  of  the  Senate,  passed  April  13th, 
1855,  have,  through  their  Chairman,  Hon.  Mark  Spencer,  Presi- 
dent pro  tern,  of  the  Senate,  presented  their  Keport,  with  volu- 
minous ex  parte  testimony.  That  Eeport,  with  the  testimony, 
is  just  puhhshed  in  the  Senate  Document  No.  46,  dated  Jan. 
29th,  1857. 

The  evident  injustice  evinced  hy  the  fact,  that  the  testi- 
mony was  partial  and  consequently  unfair,  both  to  Trinity 
Church  and  to  the  Commonwealth,  prompted  the  Honorable 
Members  of  the  Senate  of  New  York  to  recommit  the  Keport 
of  the  Select  Committee  by  a  decisive  vote,  implying,  if  not 
censure,  disapprobation. 

No  cause  that  is  good  needs  the  crutches  of  ex  parte  state- 


2 


ment  and  false  premises  for  its  support.  ■ '  And  the  recoil 
produced  by  the  explosion  of  the  offended  sense  of  decency 
and  honor  prevailing  in  the  minds  of  Senators,  must  serve 
to  counteract  and  subdue  the  prejudice  which  such  unfairness 
is  designed  to  inject  into  the  public  opinion. 

Notwithstanding  the  unfinished  condition  of  the  question, 
and  before  the  "  testimony  "  was  printed,  editors  of  the  Church 
and  Secular  newspapers  have  thought  proper  to  endorse  the 
statements,  arguments  and  conclusions  of  the  Keport  of  the 
Select  Committee,  publishing  through  their  columns,  in  edi- 
torials of  less  or  greater  length,  animadverions  the  most  severe 
against  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church.  And  they  threaten 
to  manufacture  adverse  popular  sentiment  under  color  of  com- 
ment on  "  the  latter  portion  of  the  Beport  of  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee," "  which,"  they  say,  "  is  much  the  more  important," 
because  -  "it  touches  not  only  Trinity  Corporation,  but  the 
rights  of  all  the  Churchmen  in  the  City,  and  the  interests  of 
the  Church  throughout  the  whole  State."* 

It  might  be  good  policy  in  Trinity  Church  to  wait  quietly 
until  all  has  been  said  that  can  be  said,  before  she  shall  attempt 
to  reply,  and  this  policy  would  be  merely  the  prudence  of  the 
farmer  who  "  hesitated  to  clear  the  paths  about  the  house 
until  it  had  stopped  snowing." 

Nevertheless,  since  the  "  latter  portion  of  the  Report  of 
the  Senate  Committee  "  is  confessedly  of  interest  to  "  all  the 
Churchmen  in  the  City,"  it  is  a  sufficient  apology  for  one 
of  them  to  claim  a  hearing  from  Honorable  Senators  and  the 
Public  and  the  Church,  while  he  too  examines  "  the  latter 
portion  of  the  Report  of  the  Senate's  Committee,"  together 
with  some  of  the  "  testimony "  published  in  Senate  Docu- 
ment No.  46,  now  lying  before  him. 

The  foremost  point  is  to  examine  the  historical  statements 
and  quotations  from  the  Royal  Charter  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Legislature,  which  the  Select  Committee  report  as  being  de- 
rived and  "  condensed  from  information  embodied  in  the 
evidence." 


»  Church  Journal,  Feb.  4,  ISSY.    See  ib.  Feb.  11,  1857. 


3 


1.  The  Committee  begin  by  stating  that 

"  In  1697  the  site  of  the  Parish  Church  at  the  head  of 
Wall-street  was  given  by  the  English  Crown  for  "  the  use  and 
behalf  of  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting,  and 
to  inhabit,  within  our  said  City  of  New  York,  in  communion 
of  our  said  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  now  estab- 
lished by  our  laws."  * 

But  it  is  noticeable  that  the  Committee  do  not  state  (what 
appears  in  the  evidence  "  before  them)  that  "  the  land  which 
forms  the  present  Churchyard  or  Burying  Chround  of  the 
Church,"f  formerly  know  as  a  part  of  "  the  Queen's  garden,"! 
was  also  given  in  the  Charter  from  the  English  Crown  for  a 
Cemetery  or  Churchyard  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church," 
"to  be  for  ever  separated  and  dedicated  to  the  service  of  God, 
and  to  be  applied  therein  to  the  use  and  behalf  of  the  inhabi- 
tants from  time  to  time  inhabiting  and  to  inhabit  within  our 
said  City  of  New  York,  in  communion  of  our  said  Protestant 
Church  of  England,  as  now  estabUshed  by  our  laws,  and  to  no 
other  use  or  purpose  whatsoever,  any  statute  law,  custom  or 
usage  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding."§ 

This  "condensing"  of  the  "evidence  "  is  quite  significant 
when  it  is  borne  in  mind  that  a  portion  of  this  very  Grave- 
yard (now  filled  with  the  dust  of  "  the  inhabitants  of  the 
City  of  N-ew  York  ")  is  coveted  and  contended  for  by  certain 
persons,  whom  Trinity  Church,  under  a  sense  of  her  pious 
duty  as  custodian  of  the  ashes  of  the  dead,  has  resisted,  with 
cost  of  money  and  against  oflfers  of  money.  The  controversy 
concerning  the  Graveyard  is  not  yet  settled  and  is  now  pend- 
ing. It  is  even  notorious,  through  current  newspaper 
publications.  The  Select  Committee  could  not  be  ignorant 
of  the  efforts  to  profane  the  "  dedicated "  ground,  nor  of 
the  fidelity  of  Trinity  Church  in  fulfilling  her  chartered 
obligations  to  maintain  the  sacredness  of  the  Graveyard. 
And  yet,  notwithstanding  the  Charter  recites  that  "  the  Pa- 
rish Church  and  Churchyard  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church 
is  declared  to  be  for  ever  separated  and  dedicated  to  the  ser- 

*  Senate  Document  No.  46,  page  14. 
f  L.  Bradish's  TeatimoDy,  Acs.  Ist,  page  91.    %  Sen.  Doc.  Xo.  46. 
§  Charter,  1867— page  7. 


4 


vice  of  God,  and  to  be  applied  thereunto  to  the  use  and  be- 
half of  the  inhabitants,  &c.,  and  to  no  other  use;  the  Select 
Committee  think  pro2)er  to  "condense"  the  testimony  to  that 
degree  which  allows  them  only  to  state  that  ^HTie  Site  of  the 
Parish  Church"  at  the  head  of  Wall-street  was  so  given, 
separated  and  dedicated  to  a  sacred  use  for  ever. 

And  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  Select  Committee's 
"  Report "  has  been  separately  published  in  advance  of  the 
"  evidence,"  so  as  to  prejudice  public  opinion  by  dogmatic 
statement,  without  the  accompaniment  of  the  documents  by 
which  their  Report  might  be  verified. 

II.  The  second  paragraph  of  the  Report  of  the  Select 
Committee  professes  to  recite  the  history  of  the  Incorporation 
of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  following  words  and  with  the  fol- 
ing  punctuation  :* 

"  The  act  of  incorporation  in  the  same  year  made  the 
"  corporation  to  consist  of  the  rector,  '  together  with  all  the 
"  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting  and  to  inhabit  our 
"  said  city  of  New  York,  and  in  communion  of  our  aforesaid 
"  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  now  established  by  our 
"laws  and  the  legal  title  of  the  corporation  was  therefore 
"  declared  to  be  :  '  The  rector  and  inhabitants  of  our  said 
"  city  of  New  York  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  Church 
of  England,  as  now  established  by  our  laws.' " 

Such  is  the  entire  and  exact  Report  of  the  Select  Com- 
mittee, purporting  to  be  condensed  from  "information  embodied 
in  the  evidence,"  and  professing  to  set  forth  a  verbal  quotation 
from  the  Charter  of  1697.  It  professes,  likewise,  by  impli- 
cation, to  publish  all  that  the  said  Charter  contains  essential 
to  the  question  of  the  "  Incorporation." 

That  Charter  of  Trinity  Church  is  not  published  in  the 
Report  and  accompanying  documents  of  the  Select  Committee. 

And  it  grieves  the  writer  to  denounce  the  Committee's 
Report  :  1st,  For  omitting  essential  provisions  of  the  Char- 
ter :  2nd,  For  reasoning  from  fragmentary  quotations  from 
tJie  Charter  :  3rd,  For  suppressing  a  word  in  that  clause  of 
the  Charter  which  the  Committee  professes  to  quote  verbally. 


*  Senate  Document  Ko.  46,  page  14. 


5 


Why  that  word  was  suppressed,  and  why  the  maimed  clause, 
purporting  to  be  the  "  Act  of  Incorporation,"  which  partic- 
ularly describes  the  Corporators  of  Trinity  Church,  was  thus 
deliberately  published  in  its  garbled  condition  by  the  high 
authority  of  the  Select  Committee  of  the  Senate  of  New  York, 
shall  be  exj^oscd  before  this  examination  shall  be  closed. 

The  reader  will  see,  by  simple  inspection  of  the  paragraph 
now  under  review,  that  the  idea  sought  to  be  conveyed  in  that 
Eeport,  is  this  :  that  "  all  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time 
inhabiting  and  to  inhabit  the  City  of  New  York,  and  in 
communion  with  the  Protestant  Church  of  England,"  were 
invested,  by  the  charter  of  King  William  III.  in  1697,  with 
indefeasible  and  with  equal  rights,  as  Corporators  of  Trinity 
Church.  By  virtue,  simply,  of  being  inhabitants  of  the  City 
of  New  York  and  of  being  in  communion  with  the  Protestant 
Church  of  England  (or  as  now,  in  communion  with  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  New  York),  any  person,  thus 
qualified,  may,  under  the  said  Charter,  claim  a  right  to  vote 
and  to  be  voted  for,  in  all  Corporative  elections.  This  is  the 
very  iwint  and  pivot  of  the  controversy  with  Trinity  Church. 

The  Select  Committee  affirm  that  "the  Charter  of  1697" 
secures  the  rights  of  a  Corporator  of  Trinity  Church  to  every 
inhabitant  of  the  City  of  New  York  for  all  time  to  come,  who 
is  also  in  communion  with  the  Church  of  England  (or  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  New  York);  whether  such  per- 
son be  or  be  not  a  member  of  the  parish  of  Trinity  Church  : 
whether  or  not  he  be  ecclesiastically  subject  to  the  Rector  of 
Trinity  Church  :  whether  or  not  he  belong  to  some  other 
parish  in  the  City  of  New  Y^'ork,  and  have  no  parochial  relation- 
ship to  either  the  Eector  of  Trinity  Church  or  the  Kector  of 
any  other  Church.  The  qualifications  of  being  "  an  inhabi- 
tant of  the  City  of  New  York,  and  in  comynunion  tvith  the 
Church  aforesaid,"  constitute  the  only  qualifications,  under 
the  Charter  of  1697,  to  make  a  man  a  Corporator  of  Trinity 
Church. 

This  is  the  assertion  of  the  Select  Committee  :  this  is  the 
"  evidence "  of  many  of  those  whom  the  Committee  sum- 
moned to  testify  ;  this  is  the  claim  argued  for,  in  the  Report ; 
this  is  the  right  which  (the  Committee  say)  the  Charter  of 


6 


1697  confers  ;  and  which  right  the  act  of  the  Legislature  of 
New  York,  passed  25  of  January,  1814,  takes  away  from  com- 
municants of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  residing  in  the 
City  of  New  York.  The  very  plea  for  revoking  the  Act  of 
1814  is  grounded  on  the  notion  that  the  said  Act  "excludes"* 
from  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  "  the  great  body  of 
Episcopahans  of  the  City  of  New  York,"  "deprives  "f  them 
"  of  important  franchises  ";  "  divests  %  them  of  their  rights  in 
valuable  estates  granted  and  confirmed  to  them  by  legal  and 
valid  acts,"  and  "therefore  §  that  the  said  Act  of  1814  is  un- 
constitutional, unequal  and  unjust." 

Surely,  then,  every  honest  mind  must  expect  that  the 
Select  Committee  of  the  Senate  would  quote,  correctly,  that 
clause  of  the  Charter  of  1697,  which,  it  is  claimed,  confers 
those  "rights"  and  "franchises,"  from  the  use  and  enjoyment 
of  which  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in  the  City  of  New 
York  are  said  to  be  "excluded,"  and  of  which  they  are 
"  deprived  "  and  "  divested  !  "  And  moreover,  every  candid 
mind  must  demand  that  the  Select  Committee,  fairly  and 
truly,  should  recite  any  other  clause  or  clauses  in  the  Charter 
of  1697,  which  exiwessly  limit  the  general  and  comjarehensive 
franchise  of  "  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York  "  (if 
such  clause  or  clauses  there  be).  And  the  ingenuous  citizen 
would,  furthermore,  require  of  his  representatives  in  the  Hon- 
orable Senate  of  the  State,  to  recite  any.  provisions  in  the 
Charter  of  1697,  which,  by  just  inference,  would  limit,  or  in 
any  way  define  and  interpret  the  questionable  claim  to  the 
estates  of  Trinity  Church,  so  long  administered  by  that  Cor- 
poration under  the  sanction  of  the  charter  of  the  crown  in 
England,  confirmed  to  that  Corporation  by  Acts  of  the  Colonial 
Legislature,  enforced  by  the  laws  of  the  State  and  settled  by 
the  decisions  of  Courts  of  Judicature.  All  this,  one  might 
anticipate,  in  view  of  the  immense  evil  which  a  disturbance 
of  a  Christian  and  Eleemosynary  foundation  will  cause  to  the 
peace  of  the  community  and  the  harmony  of  the  Church. 

But  the  Select  Committee  content  themselves  with  a 

*  L.  Bradish's  E-iidcnce.  Sec  Doc.  No.  40,  p.  95. 
f  lb.  p.  96.  \  lb.  p.  90.  §  lb.  p.  9o. 


7 


recital  of  a  fragment  of  only  one  clause  in  the  Charter  of\&^l, 
thai  recital  being  inaccurate,  through  the  suppression  of  a 
word,  more  or  less  impoiiant  to  the  controversy.  The  writer, 
therefore,  proceeds  to  supply  what  is  wanting,  by  quoting,  in 
the  first  place,  the  clauses  of  the  Charter,  omitted  in  the 
Eeport  of  the  Select  Committee,  which  clauses  bear  upon  the 
questions,  "  Who  are  the  Corporators  of  Trinity  Church  ?"  and 
"  How  are  Corporators  of  Trinity  Church  constituted  ?"  under 
the  Charter  of  1697. 

1  The  Eector  is  the  foremost  and  first  named  Corporator, 
under  the  Charter.  "  There  shall  be  a  Eector  to  have  care  of 
"the  souls  of  the  inhabitants  of  said  parish,  and  a  perpetual 
succession  of  Eectors  there." 

"And  we  further  declare  that  the  said  Eector  of  the 
"  parish  of  Trinity  Church  in  communion  of  our  Protestant 
"  Church  of  England  within  our  City  of  New  York,  shall  and 
"  may  for  ever  hereafter  have  a  common  seal." 

"  And  we  are  graciously  pleased  to  constitute  the  Lord 
"  Bishop  of  London  the  first  Eector  of  said  parish.  And  our 
"  Eoyal  will  and  pleasure  is  that  he,  the  said  Lord  Bishop  of 
"  London  and  his  successors,  and  all  such  of  our  loving  subjects 
"  as  now  are  or  hereafter  shall  be  admitted  into  the  commu- 
"  nion  of  the  aforesaid  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  now 
"  established  by  our  laws,  shall  be  from  time  to  time  and  for- 
"  ever  hereafter  a  body  corporate  and  politique,  in  fact  and 
"naiie,  by  the  name  of  the  Eector  and  inhabitants  of  our  said 
"  Ci".y  of  New  York  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  Church 
"  of  England  as  now  established  by  our  laws.  And  that  by 
"  the  same  name,  they  and  their  successors  shall  and  may 
"haAe  perpetual  succession,  &c." 

"And  that  the  said  Eector  shall  have  the  care  of  the  souls 
"of  the  inhabitants  within  the  said  parish  and  in  the  commu- 
"  nicn  of  the  said  Protestant  Church  of  England." 

"  And  our  Eoyal  will  and  pleasure  is,  further,  that  the 
"  patronage,  advowson,  donation,  or  presentation  of  and  to  the 
"  Slid  Eector  and  parish,  after  the  decease  of  the  said  first 
"  Lector,  or  the  next  avoidance  thereof,  shall  appertain  and 
"  belong  to  and  be  hereby  vested  in  the  Church  Wardens  and 
"  Testrymen." 


8 


"  And  that  all  the  succeeding  Kectors  of  said  Parish  and 
"  Parish  Church  (except  the  first  Kector  thereof  hereby  consti- 
"  tuted)  shall  be  presented,  collated,  instituted  and  inducted 
"  as  other  Rectors,  Persons  and  Vicars,  respectively,  are  accus- 
"  tomed  to  be." 

"  And  we  do  give,  grant,  ratify  and  confirm  unto  the  said 
"  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  our  said  City  of  New  York,  in 
"communion  of  our  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  now 
"  established  by  our  laws,  that  the  said  Church  and  Cemetery 
"  or  Church-yard,  situate,  lying  and  being  within  our  said  City 
"  of  New  York  as  aforesaid,  shall  be  the  sole  and  only  Parish 
"  Church  and  Church-yard  of  our  said  City  of  New  York" 

From  these  various  citations  from  the  Charter  of  1697,  it 
is  plain  that  the  Rector  is  the  Chief  Corporator,  and  so  im- 
portant to  the  integrity  of  the  Corporation  that  the  Lord 
Bishop  of  London  was  constituted  Rector  of  Trinity  Church 
by  the  Charter,  before  any  other  persons  and  as  the  head  of 
the  Parish,  without  whom  there  could  be  no  Parish." 

And  yet  the  reader  will  notice  in  the  paragraph  of  the  Se- 
lect Committee's  Report  that  the  words,  "the  Rector,"  are 
printed  in  small  type,  without  any  marks  of  quotation,  as  if 
he  were  not  an  essential  officer  of  the  Corporation,  but  ow/y  an 
appendage,  annexed  to  "all  the  inhabitants  from  time  to 
time  inhabiting  and  to  inhabit  our  said  City  of  New  Yoik." 

And  the  inference  which  the  Select  Committee  would  nave 
the  reader  to  draw  from  their  singular  mode  of  stating  aid  of 
printing  the  question,  is,  that  "the  legal  title  of  the  Corpo- 
ration was  therefore  declared  to  be:  "  The  rector  and  inhabi- 
tants of  our  said  city  of  New  York,  in  communion  o;'  our 
aforesaid  Protestant  Church  of  England,"  conveying  thereby 
the  idea  that  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church  was  to  be  defined, 
as  coextensive  with  "the  inhabitants  of  Neio  York  and  in  com- 
munion of  the  Protestant  Church  of  England; "  without  any 
necessary  parochial  connection  with  and  acknowledgment  of 
the  Rector  of  Trinity  Church.  But  the  reverse  of  the  Com- 
mittee's construction  appears  in  the  Charter.  For,  in  the 
Charter,  the  Rector  is  constituted  first  and  foremost,  and  ;hc 
other  Corporators  are  described  as  "  inhabitants  of  the  Fa- 
rish;"  or  as  those  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York  in 


9 


communion  with  the  Protestant  Church  of  England  lolio  were 
under  the  parochial  jurisdiction  of  the  Hector  of  Trinity 
Church." 

By  making  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church  the  sole  and 
only  Parish  of  the  City  of  New  York,  the  Charter  of  1697 
constitutes  the  Rector  of  Trinity  Church  the  sole  and  only 
Rector  of  New  York.  And  in  such  case,  agreeably  to  the 
laws  and  usages  in  Great  Britain  (except  in  special  cases, 
made  and  provided  for  specially)  the  geographical  limits  of 
the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church  would  embrace  the  geographical 
limits  of  the  City  and  be  coincident  with  them. 

But  it  is  highly  important  to  observe  that  the  citizens  of 
New  York  did  not,  by  the  Charter  of  1697,  derive  their  in- 
terest in  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  by  virtue  of  their 
"being  inhabitants  of  the  City  and  in  communion  with  the 
Church  of  England,"  but  by  virtue  of  their  being  under  the 
jurisdiction  ecclesiastical  of  the  Rector  of  Trinity  Church, 
inhabitants  of  the  Parish,  and  in  communion  loith  the  Church 
of  England. 

This  essential  relationship  with  the  Rector  was  established 
by  the  Charter  of  1697,  even  when  the  Parish  and  the  City 
were  coextensive,  and  while  Trinity  was  the  only  Parish 
Church  in  New  York.  Much  more,  is  this  personal  relation- 
ship with  the  Rector,  the  mark  and  sign  of  a  Corporator, 
when  the  City  of  New  York  is  composed  of  many  Parishes. 
For,  if  the  Rectors  and  members  of  other  Parishes  may  inter- 
fere in  the  parochial  concerns  of  Trinity  Church,  while  the 
Rector  and  members  of  Trinity  Church  may  not  intrude  like- 
wise into  the  concerns  of  those  other  Parishes,  there  would  he  an 
inequality  of  prerogative  injurious  to  the  Rector  and  members 
of  Trinity  Church,  while  giving  supremacy  to  the  Rectors  and 
members  of  all  other  Parishes,  enabling  them  by  their  greater 
numbers  to  override  and  rule  the  Corporation  of  Trinity 
Church.  Or  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Rectors  and  members 
of  Parishes  may,  mutually,  invade  the  Parishes  to  manage  the 
affairs  of  one  another,  then  all  order  will  cease  and  confusion 
will  abound,  while  the  distinction  of  separate  Parishes  would 
be  at  once  ridiculous,  then  obliterated  and  brought  to 
nought.    Besides,  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  for  "incor- 


4 


10 


porating  religious  societies,"  which  confines  electors  to  their 
several  Parishes,  would  thereby  be  evaded,  frustrated,  and 
made  void. 

Nor,  in  either  hypothesis,  would  the  evil  stop  here.  But 
Trinity  Church  would  not  only  be  prevented  from  choosing 
her  own  candidates  to  be  the  managers  of  her  estate,  but  she 
would  be  deprived  of  sending  her  deputies  to  the  Convention 
of  the  Diocese,  and  thus  be  utterly  silenced  ia  the  Councils 
of  the  Church,  while  other  Parishes  would  possess  the  double 
vote  of  the  Trinity  deputation  and  their  own  besides. 

In  short,  to  deny  to  Trinity  Church  the  separate  and  in- 
dependent management  of  her  Corporate  concerns  by  admit- 
ting the  community  of  new  Corporations  to  a  voice  in  her 
affairs,  is  simply  to  extinguish  Trinity  Parish,  to  blot  out  her 
existence  by  a  matricide,  as  full  of  folly  as  of  wickedness.  The 
same  rule,  therefore,  still  holds  true,  now  as  formerly,  that  the 
inhabitants  of  New  York,  who,  hij  the  Charter  of  1697,  are 
described  as  members  of  the  Corporation,  are  those  "  inhab- 
itants over  whom  the  Rector  of  Trinity  Church  has  the  care 
of  souls,  who  are  Ecclesiastically  under  the  parochial  j  uris- 
diction  of  the  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  and  who  are  com- 
municants ^'inhabiting  the  Parish"  of  Trinity  Church. 

But  this  view  of  the  relationship  of  the  Corporators,  inhab- 
itants of  the  city  of  New  York,  with  the  Rector  and  Parish 
of  Trinity  Church,  is  studiously,  and  it  may  be  said,  artfully, 
concealed  in  the  printed  Eeport  of  the  Select  Committee. 

(2.)  The  second  point  to  be  noticed  is,  the  manner  in  which, 
and  persons  by  whom.  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of 
Trinity  Church  are  to  be  chosen,  according  to  the  provisions 
of  the  Charter  of  1697. 

The  Eeport  of  the  Select  Committee,  as  well  as  the  "  evi- 
dence" of  some  of  the  persons  testifying  before  the  Committee, 
would  fain  persuade  the  reader,  that  "all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
City  of  New  York,  in  communion  of  the  Church,  may,  as  Cor- 
porators, vote  for  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity 
Church,  and  also,  that  such  inhabitants  are  themselves  eligible 
to  be  chosen  as  managers  of  the  estate,  and  may  serve,  if 
chosen,  in  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church."    And  this  result 


11 


is  precisely  what  seems  to  be  the  object  of  the  adversaries  of 
Trinity  Chiixch  to  procure. 

But  the  "  Charter  "  declares  and  prescribes  that  "  there 
"  shall  be  annually  and  once  in  every  year  forever,  on  the 
"  Thursday  in  Easter-week,  two  Church  Wardens  and  twenty 
"  Vestrymen,  duly  elected  by  the  majority  of  votes  of  the  in- 
"  habitants  of  the  Parish,  in  communion  as  aforesaid." 

And  in  case  of  a  vacancy,  the  "  Charter  "  requires  that 
"  the  Vestry  or  any  eleven  or  more  of  them,  shall  and  may  elect 
"  a  fit  person,  inhabitant  and  householder  in  the  said  Parish, 
"  to  supply  the  same." 

And  the  better  to  understand  the  meaning  of  the  word 
"  Parish,"  as  employed  at  the  date  of  the  Charter,  and  as  still 
in  use  and  signification  in  the  Ecclesiastical  polity  in  England 
and  in  this  country,  the  authorities  define  a  "Parish"  to  be 
"  the  charge  of  a  particular  Bector  or  Priest."  No  Act  of 
Parliament  has  ever  defined  the  boundaries  of  Parishes,  but 
they  have  "  been  established  as  the  circumstances  of  times, 
places,  or  persons  happened  to  make  them  greater  or  lesser."* 

And  so  careful  is  the  "  Charter  "  to  maintain  the  inde- 
pendency of  "  the  Parish,"  that,  it  furthermore  ordains  "  that 
"the  Church  Wardens,  for  the  time  being,  shall  not,  at  any 
'•'time,  dispose  of  any  of  the  pews  or  places  and  pews  in  the 
"said  Trinity  Church,  to  any  person,  not  an  inhabitant  of 
"  the  said  Parish." 

The  Charter  is  thus  wisely  solicitous  to  preserve  the  immu- 
nities of  the  parish  from  outside  intrusion,  and  to  protect  the 
parishioners  against  any  invasion  upon  their  exclusive  rights 
as  Corporators.  And  the  Select  Committee  would  have  had 
no  grounds  for  their  preposterous  assertions,  if  they  had  not 
omitted  whole  clauses  touching  the  questions  "who  are  the 
Corporators  of  Trinity  Church  ?  "  and  "  how  are  Corporators 
constituted,  under  the  Charter  of  1697  ?  "  To  this  point, 
therefore,  we  now  ask  the  reader's  attention. 

(3.)  The  Select  Committee  afiirm — that  the  Charter  of  1697 
"  made  the  Corporation  to  consist  of  the  rector,  together  with 

*  Burns'  Ec.  Law,  133;  Jacob's  Law  Diet.,  Title  Parish;  Hooli's  Church  Dic- 
tionary' ;  Stanton's,  do.  title  Parish. 


12 


all  the  inliabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting,  and  to  in- 
habit our  said  city  of  New  York,  and  in  communion  of  our 
aforesaid  Protestant  Church  of  England."  The  Committee 
have  presented  this  clause  of  the  Charter  as  containing  the 
whole  answer  to  the  question  of  incorporation.  They  convey 
the  idea  to  the  reader,  that  the  Charter  is  silent,  except  in  this 
one  clause,  touching  "  who  are  the  Corporators  and  how  are 
they  constituted."  And  the  Committee's  Eeport  corresponds 
with  the  arguments,  or  (as  they  style  them)  "  the  evidence  " 
of  some  of  the  persons  testifying.  Accordingly,  they  would 
have  us  believe  that  "  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New 
York,  in  communion,"  &c.,  possess,  under  the  Charter,  a  vested 
right  as  Corporators  ;  that  they  need  not  have  any  title  but 
this  sni^j)Osedvested right ;  that  the  right  founded  on  election,  or 
the  submission^to  the  form  of  election,  is  wholly  ignored  by  the 
Select  Committee,  as  though  the  Charter  contained  no  such 
antecedent  election,  as  a  condition  precedent  to  a  claim  to  be 
a  Corporator  of  Trinity  Church.  The  writer,  therefore,  sup- 
plies the  omission,  by  quoting  the  Charter,  as  follows  :  "  We 
"  do  of  our  like  special  grace,  certain  knowledge,  and  mere 
"  motion,  give  and  grant  unto  the  said  Kector  and  inhabitants, 
"&c.,  full  power  and  authority  to  choose,  nominate,  and  ap- 
point  so  many  others  of  our  liege  people  as  they  shall  think 
"fit,  and  shall  be  willing  to  accept  the  same,  to  he  members 
"  of  the  said  Church  and  Corporation  and  body  Politic  ; 
"  and  them  into  the  same  to  admit." 

Did  the  Select  Committee  not  observe  this  provision  of  the 
Charter  of  1697,  for  the  election  and  admission  of  members 
of  the  Corporation  ?  Did  the  witnesses,  in  their  "  evidence," 
not  see  these  pregnant  words  ?  Was  the  withholding  of  this 
clause  an  accident  ?  In  the  argument  or  "  evidence  "  of  the 
witnesses  why  was  this  clause  ignored 

We  answer  boldly,  because  this  part  of  the  Charter  utterly 
dissipates  the  claim  of  a  vested  right  to  be  a  Corporator. 
Because  it  confutes  the  argument  that  the  Law  of  1814 
"  divests "  the  inhabitants  of  New  York  of  any  right  under 
the  Charter  of  1697.  Because,  the  prerogative  to  "admit," 
implies  the  prerogative  to  refuse  admission.  Because  none 
other  but  those  persons  inhabiting  New  York,  and  in  commu- 


13 


nion,  &c.,  at  the  date  of  the  Charter,  in  1697,  were  "vested" 
by  the  Charter  with  the  rights  of  Corporators  in  Trinity  Church. 
Because,  finally,  all  fresh  Corporators  must  (in  addition  to  the 
qualifications  of  being  'parishioners  and  communicants)  be 
"  admitted"  by  a  vote  of  the  Corporation. 

What  shall  the  candid,  honest,  and  true-hearted  citizen 
say  in  sufficient  condemnation  of  this  unworthy  attempt  to 
hoodwink  the  communitj',  and  to  deceive  the  members  of  the 
Church  with  the  fancy  that  the  Charter  of  1697  "invests" 
them  with  franchises,  rights,  privileges,  &c.,  which  the  Law  of 
1814  "  deprives  them  of,"  "  divests  them  of,"  "  excludes  them 
from,"  denies  them  ;  and  which  Trinity  Church  is  monopo- 
lizing without  law  and  against  law  ! 

(4.)  But  this  is  not  all.  The  writer  proceeds  to  show  a  fault 
in  the  Keport,  worse  than  mere  omission  of  important  provi- 
sions in  the  Charter,  bearing  directly  on  the  question  in  hand. 
The  Select  Committee  have  suppressed  a  word  in  their  pro- 
fessed quotation  from  the  Charter  !  It  is  a  little  word.  It 
is  only  a  preposition.  But  small  as  it  is,  that  word  is  in  the 
Charter,  and  not  recited  in  the  Report  which  pretends  to  quote 
from  the  Charter.  And  it  is  a  word  quite  useful,  and  even 
necessary  for  the  just  interpretation  of  the  Charter  itself,  where 
it  describes  the  qualifications  of  the  Corporators  of  Trinity 
Church.  The  Charter  says,  "  Rectors  of  the  said  Parish,  to- 
"  gether  with  all  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting, 
"and  to  inhabit."  At  this  point  the  question  arises,  "what" 
inhabitants  " are  meant .?"  or,  in  other  words,  "inhabitants 
of  what  domicil  ?  "  And  the  answer  is  "  the  inhabitants  of 
the  Parish,"  just  spoken  of.  The  sense  is  quite  clear  in  this 
connection,  to  wit,  "  Rectors  of  said  Parish,  together  with  aU 
the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting  and  to  inhabit " 
said  Parish. 

Then  follow  two  further  qualifications  of  the  Lay  Corpora- 
tors, to  wit  :  They  must  be,  1st,  "  in  our  said  city  of  New 
York,"  and  2nd,  "  in  commxmion  of  our  aforesaid  Protestant 
Church  of  England." 

The  threefold  qualification  of  Lay  Corporators,  accordingly, 
is  prescribed  in  the  Charter  to  be,  persons  inhabiting  the  Pa- 


14 


rish  ;  in  New  York  ;  and  in  communion  with  the  Church  of 
England. 

But  this  interpretation  of  the  Charter,  so  consonant  with 
other  provisions,  and  so  definite  in  its  description  of  the  Cor- 
porators, is  utterly  repugnant  to  the  pretended  claims  of  per- 
sons outside  of  the  Parish,  It  is  subversive  of  the  arguments 
or  "  evidence  "  of  many  of  the  witnesses  whom  the  Select  Com- 
mittee summoned  before  them.  It  is  opposed  to  the  whole 
drift  and  scope  of  the  Committee's  Keport. 

And  how  do  the  Committee  meet  the  difficulty  ?  By 
boldly  SUPPRESSING  the  preposition  "m,"  before  the  words 
"  our  said  City  of  New  Yorlc  ;  "  substituting  thereby,  as  the 
governing  word,  the  verb  "  to  inhabit  ; "  and  by  reciting  this 
clause,  thus  mutilated,  and  so  changed  in  sense  as,  by  a  forced 
construction,  to  suit  their  foregone  conclusions  ;  and  then 
reporting  this  inaccurate  clause  as  the  true  recital  from  the 
Charier,  of  the  Qualifications  of  Corporators ! 

The  quotation  of  the  Select  Committee  reads,  persons 
"inhabiting  and  to  inhabit  our  said  City  of  New  York."* 

The  writer  feels  pitiful,  in  following  the  Select  Committee, 
to  detect  these  inaccuracies.  But  as  the  task  of  detecting  is 
a  sorry  employment,  so  the  duty  of  exposing  the  Committee  is 
a  sad,  but  imperative  obligation. 

All  that  the  writer  chooses  to  trust  himself  to  say,  by  way 
of  denouncing  this  false  quotation,  is,  that  the  absence  of  that 
word  is  a  remarkable  accident,  or  a  culpable  neglect  in  those 
persons  who  have,  in  this  Report,  stigmatized  the  Comptroller 
of  Trinity  Church,  and  who  have  accused  the  Corporation  of 
Trinity  Church,  from  the  year  1813  till  1857,  with  a  "  course  " 
of  conduct  consistent  only  "  with  deliberate  and  premeditated 
fraud  !  "  Physician,  heal  thyself ! 

The  writer  has  thus  endeavored  to  show  what  has  been 
omitted  and  what  suppressed  in  the  second  paragraph  of  that 
portion  of  the  Report  of  the  Select  Committee,  which  treats 
of  the  history  of  the  Incorporation  of  Trinity  Church. 

III.  Let  us  pass  on,  next,  to  the  third  paragraph  of  the 
same  narration.    The  report  states  as  follows  : 


»  Sen.  Doc.  No.  46,  p.  14. 


15 


"The  act  of  the  Colonial  Legislature  of  1704,  confirms 
the  essential  powers  of  the  Corporation  by  the  same  title, 
adding  the  words  'and  their  successors.' " 

The  Eeport  of  the  Select  Committee,  in  reciting  the  above 
act  of  1704,  conveys  the  idea  that  such  an  act  exists,  "  con- 
firming "  and  "  adding  "  certain  things  ;  and  these  things  are, 
Kector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  and  their 
successors.  But  why  did  not  the  Committee  state  the  fact 
that  the  act  of  1704  is  rejyealed  ?  Why  attempt  to  uphold 
those  Episcopalians  who  do  not  belong  to  the  Corporation  of 
Trinity  Church,  in  their  pretension  to  be  Corporators,  by 
naming  the  extinct  act  of  1704  ?  The  reason,  on  the  face  of 
the  Keport,  is  too  plain  to  be  hidden.  It  is  evidently  because 
the  act  of  1704  "  confirms  the  title  "  The  Kector  and  inhabit- 
ants of  the  City  of  New  York,  "and  because  the  said  act" 
adds  the  words  "  and  their  successors." 

It  is  curious  to  detect  the  littleness  of  the  artifice  of  all 
this.  1/  the  Act  of  1704  were  in  being,  then  the  words  in  the 
Corporate  title  of  Trinity  Church  in  that  act,  to  wit,  "  Rector 
"  and  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York  and  their  succes- 
"  sors  "  would  give  color  to  the  claim  that  the  present  genera- 
tion of  "  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York,  in  communion 
with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,"  are  vested  with  the 
rights  of  Corporators  of  Trinity  Church. 

A  popular  notion  of  "franchises,"  "rights,"  "privileges," 
"  vested  interests,"  &c.,  might  thereby  be  fostered  in  the  minds 
of  "  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in  the  city  of  New  York," 
who,  under  the  delusive  belief  that  they  were  "excluded,'' 
"  deprived,"  "  divested,"  and  wronged  by  Trinity  Church, 
would  join  in  an  assault  upon  Trinity  Church,  and  would 
unite  in  procuring  a  repeal  of  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  of 
1814.  Besides,  it  is  an  easy  thing  to  persuade  the  cupidity 
of  men  that  they  have  rights  in  property.  And  it  is  not  diffi- 
cult to  rouse  them  to  anger,  if  yow  can  only  inject  the  fancy 
that  somebody  is  withholding  from  them  their  just  rights. 
For  no  other  reason,  that  the  writer  can  imagine,  do  the  Select 
Committee  adduce  "  the  Act  of  1704,"  and  recite  its  pecuHar 
title  ;  omitting,  the  while,  to  state  the  fact  that  7io  such  act 
has  any  being  and  force. 


16 


It  becomes  necessary,  therefore,  to  supply  the  neglect  of 
the  Select  Committee,  by  citing  the  clause  in  the  Act  of  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York,  "  passed  17th  April, 
1784,"  wherein  the  Act  of  1704  was  annulled,  as  contrary  to 
the  new  order  of  things  brought  about  by  the  Revolution,  and 
repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

"  In  order  to  remove  all  doubts  which  may  arise  in  the 
"  minds  of  any  persons,  with  respect  to  the  continuance,  force, 
"  and  effect  of  a  certain  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  this  State 
"  while  a  Colony, . . .  passed  on  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  June, 
"  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  four,  entitled,  '  An  Act  for 
"granting  sundry  privileges  and  powers  to  the  Rector  and 
"  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York  of  the  Communion  of 
the  Church  of  England,  as  by  Law  established  ;  Be  it 
"  therefore  further  enacted,  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that 
"the  said  Act '  (with  others  enumerated  by  their  respective 
"  titles)  is  '  hereby  declared  to  he  fully  and  absolutely  ahro- 
"  gated,  abolished,  annulled,  repealed,  and  made  void,  as  in- 
"  consistent  with,  and  repugnant  to,  the  Constitution  of  this 
"State.""' 

And  notwithstanding  the  Select  Committee  adduce  this 
very  Act  of  1784,  in  a  following  paragraph  in  their  Report, 
yet  they  avoid  noticing  the  above  quoted  words  (so  strong  and 
so  thorough  that  one  would  suppose  they  could  not  fail  to  at- 
tract attention),  and  the  Select  Committee  venture  to  allege 
the  abrogated  Act  of  1704,  suggesting  its  peculiar  title,  as 
though  that  Act  of  1704  were  still  potential !  To  state  tliis 
conduct  of  the  Select  Committee  is  sufficient  for  all  honest 
readers  to  condemn  it. 

IV.  The  Select  Committee  conclude  their  sketch  of  the 
history  of  the  incorporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in  these  words  : 
"  The  Legislature  of  New  York,  in  1784,  confirmed  all  the 
original  powers  of  the  Corporation  without  altering  the  Cor- 
porate name,  which,  however,  in  1788,  was  altered  so  as  to 
substitute  the  '  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of 
New  York '  for  the  '  Protestant  Church  of  England.'  And 
no  further  legislative  action  took  effect  until  the  year  1814."  f 

*  Act  of  1784.      t  Sen.  Doc.  No.  46,  p.  14. 


17 


The  writer  would  further  add,  that  this  Act  of  1784,  with 
the  consent  of  Trinity  Church,  enlarged  the  constituency  of 
the  Corporation  by  admitting  pewholders,  and  all  persons  oc- 
cupying sittings,  who  regularly  contributed  to  the  support  of 
the  said  Church  :  and  such  others  as  should,  in  said  Church, 
partake  of  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  stated- 
ly, being  inhabitants  of  the  City  and  County  of  New  York, 
and  professing  themselves  members  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 

The  Act  of  1814,  declaratory  of  the  former  Acts  touching 
the  Charter  of  Trinity  Church,  so  far  regulates  the  constitu- 
ent members  of  the  Corporation,  as  to  conform  with  the  "  Gen- 
eral Statute  "  (under  which  all  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the 
State  of  New  York  are  governed),  by  the  provision  "  That 
all  male  persons  of  full  age,  who,  for  the  space  of  one  year 
preceding  any  election  shall  have  been  members  of  the  congre- 
gation," &c.,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  annual  elections, 
for  the  Church  Wardens,  and  Vestrymen  of  the  said  Corpora- 
tion* 

The  difference  in  the  constituency  of  the  parish  by  the 
Act  of  1784  and  the  Act  of  1814,  consists  in  substituting 
"  all  male  persons  of  full  age  "  for  "  all  persons  ;  "  and  in  re- 
quiring voters  to  have  been  members  of  the  congregation  for 
the  space  of  one  year.  These  persons,  with  the  regular  and 
stated  communicants  in  the  parish,  constitute  the  members  of 
the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church. 

V.  Following  the  Select  Committee's  Report,  it  becomes 
proper,  at  this  stage  of  our  discussion,  to  inquire  as  briefly  as 
possible  into  the  history,  and  to  state  the  recorded  facts,  re- 
specting the  Act  of  the  Legislature,  entitled  "  An  Act  to  al- 
ter the  name  of  the^  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  New 
York,  and  for  other  purposes,"  "  passed  Januaiy  25,  1814." 

The  above-named  Act  was  passed  on  the  petition  of  the 
Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  in  their  corporate  title  of  "  the 
Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York,  in  commu- 
nion of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of  New 
York." 

The  petition  of  the  Vestry  shows,  1.  That  the  Corpora- 
•  Compare  the  Act  of  1784  with  Act  of  1814. 

2 


18 


tion  liad  been  a  body  corporate  by  virtue  of  their  Charter  of 
1697. 

2.  That  the  Charter  contemplated  Trinity  Church  as  the 
sole  and  only  Parish  Church  in  the  City  of  New  York  ;  and 
that  it  continued  so  to  be  until  the  Eevolution,  and  for  a 
number  of  years  afterwards. 

3.  That  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  in  1784  enlarged  the 
number  of  Corporators  (as  noticed  already)  in  the  provision 
for  admitting  persons  holding  pews  and  sittings,  &c. 

4.  That  since  the  passing  of  said  Act  of  1784,  the  pew- 
holders,  and  the  regular  communicants  of  Trinity  Church, 
and  the  Chapel  have  been  admitted  to  vote  at  elections. 

5.  That  furthermore,  since  the  year  1784,  owing  to  the 
rapid  growth  of  the  City  of  New  York,  the  churchmen  in  the 
city  have  formed  themselves  into  distinct  Corporations,  each 
having  its  peculiar  endowments  and  place  of  worship,  with 
Rectors  and  other  officers  of  their  own  choice,  independent  of 
Trinity  Church,  and  free  from  all  control  and  interference  of 
Trinity  Church. 

6.  That,  to  all  those  Churches,  whether  formed  with  or 
without  the  concurrence  of  Trinity  Church,  she  had  made 
liberal  donations,  at  the  same  time  disclaiming  any  right  or 
disposition  to  intermeddle  with  their  internal  concerns,  and 
denying  them  their  right  to  vote  in  the  elections,  or  to  regu- 
late the  affairs,  of  Trinity  Church. 

7.  That,  nevertheless,  a  few  individuals  belonging  to  such 
separate  Corporations,  tendered  themselves  at  the  Annual 
Election  of  the  year  1812,  and  pretended  to  claim  a  right  to 
vote  for  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church  ; 
that  their  votes  were  rejected,  and  no  measures  had  been 
taken  by  the  rejected  persons  to  establish  the  right  so  claimed. 

8.  That  such  attempts  cannot  fail  to  produce  strife,  and 
to  foster  pretensions  both  unreasonable  and  mischievous. 

9.  That  in  view  of  all  these  facts,  and  being  especially 
convinced  that,  since  the  formation~of  many  distinct  Churches, 
the  corporate  name  of  Trinity  Church,  to  wit : — "  The  Rector 
and  inhabitants,"  &c.,  has  become  inapplicable,  and  ought  to 
be  changed  ;  that  all  doubts  respecting  the  persons  entitled 


19 


to  vote  for  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity 
Church,  ought  to  be  finally  obviated  and  settled. 

10.  That,  furthermore,  the  law  requiring  certain  religious 
corporations  to  exhibit  an  inventory  of  their  estates,  is  at- 
tended with  trouble  and  expense,  and  being  once  exhibited  it 
would  be  useless  to  exhibit  it  again,  unless  the  Corporation 
should  have  acquired  further  estates. 

11.  Therefore  the  petitioners  pray  that  the  honorable  Leg- 
islature "will  pass  an  Act  for  altering  the  name  of  their  in- 
"  corporation  ;  and  also  to  obviate  and  settle  the  questions 
"  that  might  arise  in  consequence  of  incorporating  other  Epis- 
" copal  congregations  in  the  City  of  New  York;  and  to  do 
"away  the  necessity  of  such  inventory  and  account  being  ex- 
"  hibited  more  than  once,  unless  upon  the  acquisition  of  addi- 
"  tional  property  by  religious  corporations." 

Such  is  a  fair  and  true  abstract  of  the  petition  of  Trinity 
Church  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York,  setting 
forth  the  reasons  for  the  same,  and  containing  all  the  motives 
and  'persuasions  loMcli  Trinity  Church  thought  Jit  to  urge  upon 
the  Legislature  to  secure  the  passage  of  the  act  q/"  1814. 

This  document  was  before  the  Select  Committee  of  the 
Senate  in  1857.  And  yet  that  Committee,  in  their  Keport, 
now  before  us,  scarcely  allude  to  this  petition  of  Trinity 
Church  ;  which,  the  reader  will  observe,  is  dignified  in  its 
utterance,  clear  in  its  statements,  and  cogent  in  its  conclu- 
sions. But  the  Select  Committee,  blind  'J^o  this  authentic 
document,  sets  forth  an  entirely  different  paper — a  paper  not 
addressed  to  the  Legislature,  not  written  until  after  the  Le- 
gislature had  passed  the  act  of  1814  in  both  Houses,  not 
emanating  from  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  not  even 
suggested  by  Trinity  Church  or  its  friends,  but  (as  the  paper 
states  on  its  face)  suggested  by  another  party  ;  a  paper,  the 
responsibility  for  which  is  assumed  by  him  who  signed  it — by 
him  only  ;  and  not  capable,  one  would  think,  of  being  tor- 
tured into  an  authoritative  "  pledge,"  "  promise,"  or  "  lepre- 
sentation,"  from  either  its  writer  or  any  other  person  or  per- 
sons ;  being  entitled  "  Remarks,  &c.,"  and  consisting  of  argu- 
ments, and  signed  by  "  Eobt.  Troup,"  under  date  of  6  Sept., 
1813,  in  the  city  of  New  York. 


20 


This  private  paper,  the  Select  Committee  of  the  Senate 
have  the  hardihood  to  quote,  as  emanating  from  the  Vestry 
of  Trinity  Church,  and  containing  "representations,"  "  prom- 
ises," and  pledges,  which  Trinity  Church  has  falsified  and 
violated,  and  as  setting  forth  the  "  inducements"  to  the  Legis- 
lature to  pass  this  act  of  1814. 

And  on  the  conclusions  drawn  from  their  own  reasoning 
on  these  false  premises,  the  Select  Committee  charge  upon  the 
Wardens  and  the  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church  in  1813-14, 
and  upon  the  members  of  the  Corporation  since  that  time, 
dishonesty  and  meanness,  and  (if  they  had  dared)  "  fraud,"  in 
procuring  the  act  of  1814  under  false  pretences.  But  let  us 
recite  the  Select  Committee's  words  ;  and  afterwards  the 
writer  will  proceed  to  substantiate  his  accusations  against  the 
Committee's  statements,  arguments,  and  conclusions. 

"  Your  Committee  do  not  charge  that,  in  obtaining  the 
"  law  of  1814  under  the  representations  employed  for  that 
"purpose,  the  Corporation  were  guilty  of  deliberate  and  pre- 
"  meditated  fraud,  in  setting  forth  inducements  which  they 
"  never  intended  to  realize.  But  thus  much  your  Committee 
"  feel  bound  to  say,  that  if  there  had  been  any  such  fraudulent 
"  intention  to  obtain  power  under  that  law,  in  order  to  defeat 
"  the  very  ends  which  it  proposed  to  secure,  your  Committee 
"  cannot  see  that  it  would  have  been  necessary  for  the  Cor- 
"  poration,  in  that  case,  to  alter  in  any  respect  that  which  has 
"  been  their  actual  course,  in  order  to  carry  out  such  fraudulent 
"  intention  with  entire  success."f 

These  insinuations  are  serious  charges  against  honorable 
men.  Emanating  from  the  high  station  of  Senators  of  New 
York,  these  imputations  acquire  a  force  to  crush  those  upon 
whom  they  fell,  unless  those  intended  victims  were  sus- 
tained in  the  strength  of  compact  integrity.  But  if  the 
charges  be  false,  no  station  is  high  enough  to  protect  the 
authors  of  the  slander  from  a  rebounding  stroke  which  shall 
hurl  them  amongst  the  ignoble  herd  of  detractors  and  false 
accusers  of  their  fellow-citizens. 

The  gentlemen  against  whom  the  accusations  of  the  Select 

*  Sen.  Doc.  No.  46,  p.  16,  &c. 
t  Sen.  Doc.  No.  46,  Report  of  Sel.  Com.  p.  26. 


21 


Committee  are  aimed,  are  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  and 
especially  the  Committee  ',of  the  Vestry,  in  1813,  who  were 
appointed  to  apply  to  the  Legislature.  That  Committee  was 
composed  of  Eichard  Harrison,  David  M.  Clarkson,  Thomas 
Barrow,  Eobert  Troup,  Jacob  Le  Roy,  Peter  Augustus  Jay, 
and  Thomas  L.  Ogden.  These  are  names  of  gentlemen  whom 
the  breath  of  slander  has  never  sullied  in  their  lifetime  ;  and 
it  shall  be  the  writer's  pious  tribute  to  their  honored  memory, 
to  protect  those  names  from  slander,  now  that  they  are  dead. 

It  has  been  shown  to  the  reader  that  the  reasons  of  the 
Vestry  for  applying  to  the  Legislature  for  the  act  of  1814, 
were  set  forth  in  their  "  petition  and  that  the  Select  Com- 
mittee do  not  ground  their  charges  against  the  Vestry  on  that 
petition.  And  furthermore,  the  "  petition  "  of  Trinity  Church 
is  the  only  extant  authoritative  document  from  which  the 
Select  Committee  might  derive  matter  on  which  to  base  any 
charges  against  the  Vestry  in  the  premises. 

Accordingly,  the  Select  Committee  resort  to  the  pamphlet 
of  Eobert  Troup,  before  mentioned  ;  where  we  follow  on  upon 
the  traces  of  their  specious  reasoning. 

The  Select  Committee  affirm  that  "  as  an  inducement  to 
the  Legislature  to  pass  this  act  of  1814,  Col.  Troup,  who 
appears  to  have  acted  throughout  as  the  authorized  agent  of 
Trinity  Church  in  procuring  its  passage,  declared  before  the 
Council  of  Eevision,  '  Judging  from  the  past,  it  is  morally 
certain,'  &c.  Now,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  in  proof  before  the 
Select  Committee,  that  Col.  Troup's  pamphlet,  from  which  the 
Select  Committee  make  the  quotations,  was  not  written  until 
after  the  act  of  1814  liad  passed  both  Houses  of  the  Legis- 
lature. 

We  say  that  the  evidence  of  this  fact  was  before  the  Select 
Committee,  in  the  testimony  of  one  of  the  witnesses  whom 
they  had  summoned. 

The  Hon.  L.  Bradish,  in  his  8th  answer,  says,  "From  the 
journals  of  the  Legislature  and  the  Council  of  Eevision,  which 
I  have  examined,  it  appears  that  the  petition  of  Trinity 
Church,  for  the  act  of  1814,  was  presented  in  the  Senate  of 
the  State  on  the  17th  March,  1813,  a  bill  brought  in,  which 


22 


was  passed  by  that  body  on  the  25th  March,  1813,  and  by  the 
Assembly  on  the  2d  of  April,  1813." 

In  the  "  11th  Answer"  of  the  Hon.  L.  Bradish,  he  alludes  to 
and  quotes  from  the  same  Pamphlet  of  "  Kobert  Troup," 
giving  its  date,  of"  6th  of  September,  1813." 

Notwithstanding  this  evidence  before  the  Select  Committee 
they  do  not  scruple  to  allege  an  argument,  uttered  in  Septem- 
ber, as  proof  of  an  inducement  to  the  Legislature"  to  pass 
an  Act  in  the  months  of  March  and  April  preceding ! 

According  to  the  logic  of  the  Select  Committee,  the  induce- 
ment for  the  Act  of  the  two  Houses  did  not  exist  until  Jive  or 
six  months  after  the  tioo  Houses  had  passed  the  Act !  And,  fur- 
thermore, the  Pamphlet  of  Judge  Troup  is  itself  a  confutation 
of  the  allegation  of  the  Select  Committee,  both  in  the  Title 
and  in  the  first  sentence.  The  title  of  the  Pauiphlet  is 
"  Remarks  on  the  Bill,  entitled,  An  Act  to  alter  the  name  of 
the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  and  for  other  purposes." 
And  the  first  sentence  of  the  Pamphlet  is  this  :  "  The  Bill 
loas  popidar  in  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature,  and  it  p)assed 
by  large  majorities." 

If  the  Select  Committee  of  the  Senate  did  really  examine 
the  document  from  which  they  quote,  sentence  after  sentence, 
in  their  Report,  a  more  glaring  and  scandalous  misstatement 
could  not  confound  them.  And  yet  the  falsehood  runs  through- 
out this  Report,  wherein  the  Remarks  of  Judge  Ti'oup,  uttered 
after  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  1814,  are  alleged  as  "  induce- 
ments" to  said  Act. 

In  pity  and  in  charity  the  writer  has  sought  to  find  an  ex- 
planation in  behalf  of  the  Select  Committee. 

And  the  first  hypothesis  that  occurs  is  this  :  that  the 
Select  Committee  did  not  lorite  their  Report  ;  it  was  com- 
posed for  them,  perhaps,  by  many  journeymen  hands  ;  and 
hence  the  incompatibilities,  inconsistencies,  and  sophistries 
manifest  on  its  pages.  But  secondly,  The  Select  Committee 
have  signed  the  Report,  and  thereby  have  assumed  the  re- 
sponsibility for  its  stateiuents  and  its  issues.  Therefore,  the 
plausible  idea  occurs,  that  the  Select  Committee  did  not  mean 
to  have  the  reader  understand  the  term  "  the  Legislature,"  to 
signify  the  "  two  Houses  of  Senate  and  Assembly,"  because 


•23 


(as  the  State  Constitution  then  stood)  a  "  Council  of  Kevi- 
sion"  existed  to  supervise  the  Acts  which  had  passed  both  Houses 
with  qualified  power  to  veto  such  of  said  Acts  as  the  majority 
of  the  Council  disapproved.  Therefore,  inasmuch  as  Judge 
Troup's  pamphlet  was  addressed  to  "  the  Council  of  Revi- 
sion," and  "  the  Council  of  Revision"  was  a  quasi  part  of  the 
"  Legislature,"  it  may  be  affirmed  that  the  "  Legislature" 
were  "  induced"  to  pass  the  Act  of  1814  through  Judge 
Troup's  persuasive  reasoning  before  "  the  Council  of  Revision." 
But  this  plea  for  the  Special  Committee  will  hardly  serve, 
because  the  Council  of  Revision  happened  (as  Hon.  L.  Bradish 
testifies  in  his  8th  Answer  before  the  Select  Committee)  to  be 
"  equally  dinded.  No  order  was  made  thereon,  and  the  bill 
became  a  law  by  lapse  of  time,  without  ever  having  received 
the  express  sanction  of  the  executive  department  of  the 
Government."* 

Accordingly,  it  appears  that  after  all,  only  the  tioo  Houses 
of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  are  the  "  Legislature"  who  passed 
upon  the  Act  of  1814,  induced  thereto  by  Judge  Troup's 
pamphlet,  ichich  teas  not  then  written  .'" 

But,  furthermore,  this  plea  for  the  Select  Committee  is 
confuted  out  of  their  own  mouths  :  for  the  Select  Committee 
say  in  their  Report,  that  "  Under  these  inducements"  (refer- 
ring to  a  passage  by  them  quoted  from  Judge  Troup's  pam- 
phlet immediately  preceding)  "the  bill  passed  both  HousES."f 
To  casuists  more  adroit  than  honest,  the  writer  must  leave 
the  Statement  of  the  Select  Committee's  Report  to  find  a 
plea  to  justify  or  even  to  extenuate  such  absurdities  and 
untruths. 

The  writer  calls  the  reader's  notice  next  to  the  reasoning: 
of  the  Select  Committee,  by  which,  with  a  sort  of  feline 
stealthiness,  they  approach  their  conclusion  of  a  "  fraud." 

The  Statement  of  the  Select  Committee  now  under  review, 
furthermore  affirms,  that  "  Col.  Troup  appears  to  have  acted 
throughout  as  the  authorized  agent  of  Trinity  Church,  in  pro- 
curing the  passage"!  of  the  Law  of  1814. 

This  very  guarded  and  qualified  statement  of  Col.  Troup's 

*  Sen.  Doc.  46,  p.  95,  and  L.  Bradish's  Testimony,    f  Sen.  Doc.  No.  46,  p.  7. 
X  Sen.  Doc.  46,  p.  16,  17, 


24 


"  authorized  agency,"  is  soon  magnified  into  an  unqestionable 
"  authorized"  agency,  but  so  quietly  and  cunningly  as  almost 
to  escape  observation.  In  the  next  reference  to  Col.  Troup's 
pamphlet,  as  quoted  by  the  Select  Committee,  "  Col.  Troup" 
disappears,  and  his  place  is  supplied  by  a  neuter  pronoun. 
"  It  was  urged,  as  '  morally  certain,'  that  the  Corporators, 
"  &c."*  "  The  frequent  execution  of  this  power,"  it  was 
('  represented'^  "  would  break  down"  the  estate  of  Trinity 
Church."f  These  quotations  are  cited  from  Col.  Troup's 
pamphlet. 

Then,  further  on,  a  page  or  two  in  the  Select  Committee's 
Report,  the  "  neuter  pronoun"  is  made  to  give  place  to  the 
Vestry  (while  "  Col.  Troup"  is  introduced  in  a  parenthesis,  as 
a  subordinate).  "  The  increase  of  population  in  the  City  of 
New  York,  it  was  urged  by  the  Vestry,  through  Col  .Troup," 
made  it  "  morally  certain  "  that  Trinity  would,:]:  &c.  Again 
"  The  new  policy  of  Trinity  Corporation  has  therefore  disap- 
pointed the  authoritative  representation  of  Colonel  Troup."§ 

Then,  in  the  very  next  paragraph,  "  Colonel  Troup  is  dis- 
missed, to  appear  on  the  stage  no  more,  and  Trinity  Church 
is  put  in  the  forefront,  as  making  "pledges."  "  The  Evi- 
dence," say  the  Select  Committee,  "  shows  that  another  evil 
"  has  arisen  out  of  this  failure  on  the  part  of  Trinity  Church 
"  to  fuljil  the  pledges  under  which  she  obtained  the  law  of 
"  1814."|| 

The  reader,  who  has  followed  the  artful  statements  of  the 
Eeport  of  the  Select  Committee,  will  now  discern  the  method 
by  which  the  Committee  has  contrived  to  insinuate  the  charge 
of  "  fraud"  on  Trinity  Church,  in  procuring  the  enactment  of 
the  law  of  1814. 

But  the  writer  craves  the  reader's  patience  and  asks  him 
to  restrain  his  expression  of  indignation  until  he  further 
acquaints  him  with  the  utter  contradiction  of  the  statement 
that  Judge  Troup  has  spoken  in  his  Pamphlet  at  the  sugges- 
tion of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church. 

In  the  first  paragraph  of  Judge  Troup's  Pamphlet,  he 
says,  "  Two  members  of  that  Honorable  Body  (meaning  the 


*  Sen.  Rep.  46,  p.  18.  \  lb.  p.  18.  %  Sen.  Doc.  46,  p.  20. 

§  Sen.  Doc.  46,  p.  21.  \  lb.  p.  22. 


25 


Council  of  Revision)  were  pleased  to  express  a  desire  that  the 
subscriber  would  furnish  them  with  liis  reasons  in  support  of 
the  Bill." 

But  let  us  cite  the  whole  paragraph,  even  at  the  cost  of 
tautology. 

"  The  Bill  was  popular  in  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature, 
and  it  passed  by  large  majorities.  Certain  objections  were, 
notwithstanding,  reported  against  it  in  the  Council  of  Kevi- 
sion  ;  and  these  remain  to  be  acted  upon  at  the  next  meeting 
of  the  Council.  Two  members  of  that  llonorable  Body  were 
pleased  to  express  a  desire  that  the  subscriber  would  furnish 
them  with  his  reasons  in  support  of  the  bill ;  and  in  compli- 
ance with  this  desire,  the  following  remarks  are  most  respect- 
fully submitted."* 

With  this  authoritative  statement  of  Judge  Troup  himself 
before  their  eyes,  the  writer,  or  any  other  honest  man,  finds  it 
impossible  to  pardon  the  Select  Committee  for  their  attempt 
to  identify  "  Trinity  Church"  with  "  Judge  Troup,"  and  to 
make  his  private  opinions  and  pious  hopes,  their  "  promises" 
and  "  pledges." 

And  the  writer,  therefore,  publishes  it  to  the  Church  and 
to  the  world  that  the  Select  Committee  of  the  Senate  of 
the  State  of  New  York  in  1S57,  passing  over  the  published 
Petition  of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  in  luhich  Petition 
and  in  that  only,  they  authoritatively  allege  the  reaso7isfor  the 
Law  of  1814,  have,  in  their  Keport,  set  forth  the  private 
reasons  of  an  advocate  in  the  character  of  pledges  authorized 
by  a  Corporation  :  and  thereby,  without  any  cause,  they  have 
held  up  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  before  the  Senate  as  responsible 
for  opinions  which  they  never  expressed,  and  for  promises  which 
they  never  made,  and  for  inducements  which  they  did  not  sug- 
gest, and  pledges  which  they  never  offered.  And  this  iniquity 
of  the  Special  Committee  is  conceived  and  born  in  the  design  to 
represent  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  as  obtaining  the 
Law  of  1814  under  false  pretence.'',  insinuating  the  odious 
imputation  of  "fraud"  upon  the  memories  of  the  dead,  and 

*  Remarks  oq  Trinity  Church  Bill  before  the  Couacil  of  Revision,  by  Robert 
Troup,  Esq.i  one  of  the  Veitryonen  of  Trinity  Church,  p.  1. 


26 


upon  the  chamcter  of  the  living  gentlemen,  who  have  com- 
posed the  Vestiy  of  Trinity  Church  since  the  year  1813. 

VI.  The  writer  furthermore  arraigns  the  Report  of  the 
Select  Committee  before  the  bar  of  public  opinion  in  the  mer- 
cantile world. 

The  Report,  before  it  attempts  the  positive  charge  of  a 
"course"  of  fraudulent  conduct  on  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church 
prepares  the  reader  for  said  charge  by  a  financial  statement. 

Trinity  Church,  in  her  Report  of  1855  to  the  Legislature, 
in  answer  to  their  demands,  presented  an  estimate  of  her  es- 
tate derived  from  the  value  of  her  lots  as  appraised  by  the 
Bworn  Assessors  of  the  city  of  New  York,  and  from  the  value 
of  the  houses  belonging  to  her  tenants,  as  appraised  by  her 
own  agents. 

These  agents  were  carpenters  and  masons,  not  Episcopa- 
lians, except  one  of  them,  nor  in  any  way  under  the  influence 
of  Trinity  Church.  Furthermore,  the  Vestry  employed  a 
public  Consulting  Actuary  to  calculate  the  value  of  the  Rever- 
sions, in  order  to  reach  "  the  present  value  "  of  her  Estate. 

The  results  of  these  appraisals  and  calculations,  the 
Vestry  reported  to  the  Legislature  in  obedience  to  their 
requisition.  The  Special  Committee  to  whom  the  Report  of 
Trinity  Church  was  referred,  have  chosen  to  dispute[the  accu- 
racy of  these  Estimates  of  the  i^roperty  of  Trinity  Church. 
In  doing  so,  the  Special  Committee  include  Bonds  given  to 
Trinity  Church  by  the  churches  whom  Trinity  has  endowed, 
notwithstanding  these  bonds  are  never  enforced.  They  have 
also  reckoned  into  the  account  the  interest  on  these  bonds, 
although  the  interest  is  never  demanded,  nor  entered  into  her 
accounts.  They  have  ignored  the  declaration  of  the  Vestry, 
that  "  these  bonds  on  the  Churches  are  demanded  in  order  to 
insure  them,  perpetually  to  be  used  for  the  sacred  purposes  to 
which  the  Churches  are  consecrated."  But  because,  in  the 
event  of  any  attempt  to  alienate  those  Churches,  Trinity  may 
demand  the  repayment  of  the  principal  and  interest  of  the 
bDnds,  the  Select  Committee  have  chosen  to  reckon  them  as 
part  of  the  assets  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity. 

The  Select  Committee  have  included,  also,  an  interest  of 
Trinity  Church  in  St.  John's  Park  ;  which  the  Vestry  has 


27 


refused  to  sell,  except  for  an  exorbitant  price,  set  upon  it  in 
order  to  discourage  the  attempt  to  buy  it.  In  this  way  the 
Select  Committee  has  reported  the  estate  of  Trinity  Church 
to  be  "j^ue  times  the  amount,"  which  the  Keport  of  1855 
estimated  the  estate.  The  object  of  the  Select  Committee,  in 
this  exaggerated  calculation,  was,  plainly,  to  convict  the 
Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  of  falsehood,  in  underrating  their 
property.  Now,  the  point  to  which  the  writer  would  ask  the 
attention  of  the  honorable  mercantile  community  is  this: 
The  calculation  of  the  Select  Committee,  on  page  12  of  their 
Report,  in  Sen.  Doc,  No.  46,  produces  an  aggregate  sum  of — 

§7,092,544  76 

Deduct  on  account 
of  Leases  yet  to  run  as 
estimated  in  the  Report 
itself,  (say  the  Select 
Committee),  $1,222,338  29 

Debt  (of  the  Cor- 
poration of  Trinity 
Church),  648,913  00 

$1,871,251  29 


Net  total  present  value,  $5,221,293  47 

The  Committee  exclaim  :  "  More  than  five  times  the  net 
total  given  in  the  Eeport." 

The  merchant  will  notice,  however,  that  the  sum  to  de- 
duct on  account  of  leases  yet  to  run  "  (with  seeming  but  most 
delusive  candor),  is  "  estimated"  according  to  the  estimate  of 
Trinity  Clmrcli  in  their  '^report"  of  1855. 

But  this  very  estimate  in  the  Beport  of  1855  is  accused  of 
being  only  one-fifth  of  the  true  sum,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Se- 
lect Committee. 

Notwithstanding,  the  Select  Committee,  in  spite  of  their 
condemnation,  adopt  this  very  diminished  estimate  of  '"the 
value  of  the  leases  yet  to  run,"  on  the  low  percentage  which 
they  themselves  condemn.  The  purpose  is  patent.  It  is  to 
increase,  by  this  means,  the  sum  total  of  the  estate  of  Trinity 


28 


Church  so  as  to  deceive  the  Senate  and  the  community  with 
the  flourish  of  "more  than  fiv<i  times  the  net  vaUie  given  in 
the  Keport."    It  is  to  prove  their  false  charge  by  false  figures. 

The  writer  has  taken  the  trouble  to  resort  to  an  accountant 
and  consulting  actuary  to  ascertain,  approximately,  the 
amount  of  the  false  estimate  of  the  Select  Committee.  And 
he  finds  it  to  reach  the  sum  of  $1,468,116,36,  or  nearly  one 
and  a  half  millions  of  dollars 

*  The  value  of  the  lota,  after  deJueting  the  estimated  value 

of  the  buildings,  was,  by  the  Report  $2,6G8,'710 

Tlie  value  of  the  sanne,  as  reported  by  the  Senate  Committee,  is  5,874,023 

Increase  .       .       .       .       •  §3,205,313 

But  the  above  lots  are  subject  to  certain  leases,  expiring  at  different  periods, 
and  consequently  the  present  value  of  the  lots  is  reduced  by  calculating  the 
reversion  of  the  above  leases,  to  $1,446,371  71,  and  raising  the  value  of  the  lots, 
the  deduction  thus  made  for  running  leases  must  likewise  be  increased  in  the 
same  proportion. 

Assuming  that  the  advance  in  the  above  valuation,  by  the  Senate  Commit- 
tee, had  been  made  by  a  uniform  percentage  (which  may  not  be  the  case),  the 
value  of  the  tenant  interest  would  be  raised  by  the  same  percentage  to 
$2,690,454  65. 

This  result  is  probably  as  near  to  the  actual  value  as  can  be  reached,  with- 
out going  into  a  new  and  laborious  calculation  cf  each  lot,  and  of  eacli  lease, 
by  themselves.  The  accurate  computation  of  each  separate  reversion  might 
and  would,  no  doubt,  produce  a  difl'erent  sum,  but  it  could  not  be  of  any  im- 
portance, and  probably  not  vary  over  five  per  cent,  one  way  or  tlie  other. 

J.  F.  ENTZ, 
Accountant  and  Conmlting  Acluary. 

New  York  Life  Ins.  and.Trust  Co. 
February  9th,  1857. 

Furthermore  :  Deducting  from  the  Select  Committee's  sura  total,  the  items 
which  the  Committee  seem  to  be  conscious  are  aTo«(7/"«Z/^  introduced  by  them 
(in  order  to  swell  the  difference  between  the  aggregate  of  their  own  e.~limate 
and  the  estimate  of  the  Vestry),  to  wit:— 

St.  John's  Park   $400,000  00 

Church  bonds  and  mortgages,  with  in-  )  gg 
teresttoJan.  1,  1857.  )  ' 

The  exaggerated  estimate  of  the  Select  )  959  89 

Committee,  is'   \  «     .  - 

Add  the  Committee's  mistake  in  their  es-  ) 
tiraate  of   "  the  present  value,"  as  shown  >- 

above  by  the  calculations  of  Mr.  Entz   )  $1,468,116  36 

Produces  an  over  estimate  of  the  Select  )   

Committee,  bv  ihetr  own  showing,  of  a  total  >• 

of.  "  )  $2,440,079  25 


29 


Surely,  this  is  an  unfortunate  exposure  of  the  Select  Com- 
mittee of  the  Honorable  Senate  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
•who  are  miserably  striving  to  convict  Trinity  Church  of  finan- 
cial errors  !  Again  we  apply  to  this  Select  Committee  this 
sacred  proverb,  in  all  seriousness,  "  physician  heal  thyself!  " 

There  is  but  one  more  point  to  which  the  writer  would  call 
attention.  It  touches  the  witnesses  "  whom  the  Select  Com- 
mittee relied  on  in  framing  their  Keport  to  the  question,  'How 
many /ree  Churches  are  there  in  New  York,' "  not  one  of  the 
witnesses  mentioned  Trinity  Church,  the  noblest  Free 
Church  of  all. 

In  view  of  the  examination  which  the  writer  has  been  at 
pains  to  undertake,  he  would  conclude  with  a  sigh  at  the  evi- 
dence, which  the  Report  of  the  Select  Committee  unfolds,  of 
the  infirmity  of  sinful  men,  in  their  attempts  to  deceive  them- 
selves. But  there  is  another  feeling,  also  clamoring  to  be 
heard  and  expanded.  It  is  the  feeling  of  indignation  against 
the  Select  Committee  and  their  advisers;  it  is  the  sentiment  of 
generous  sympathy  with  Trinity  Church  ;  it  is  the  uprising  of 
outraged  humanity,  aroused  to  the  conviction  that  its  credulity 
has  been  abused,  and  its  confidence  in  Senators  impaired,  and 
its  trust  in  brethren  betrayed. 

While,  therefore,  the  writer  (with  the  Select  Committee) 
condemns  the  former  policy  (now  revoked)  of  the  Vestry  of 
Trinity  Church  (as  evinced  in  the  leases  of  pews  in  Trinity 
Chapel),  in  the  attempt  to  prevent  the  enlargement  of  her 
constituent  corporators — while  he  advises  the  widest  admission 
of  all  who  are  duly  qualified  into  the  Corporation,  and  while 
he  would  cultivate  and  cherish  intimate  relationships  of  broth- 
erhood with  all  fellow-churchmen,  he  would,  at  the  same  time, 
repel  the  brethren  of  other  corporations  from  intermeddling  with 
the  corporate  elections  of  Trinity  Church,  earnestly  advocating 
the  stability  of  the  law,  and  pleading  with  the  Legislature  of  New 
York  to  listen  to  no  such  representations  as  are  set  forth  in 
the  Eeport  of  the  Select  Committee.  Let  it  be  by  public 
justice  ordained,  that  the  Law  of  1814  shall  stand  ;  for  the 
honor  of  the  State  ;  for  the  peace  of  the  Church  ;  for  the 
good  of  posterity  ;  and  to  the  confusion  of  misguided  zealots 
and  covetous  men. 


30 


The  writer  would  now  draw  together  the  threads  of  his 
examination  and  exposure  of  the  Select  Committee's  Keport, 
by  recapitulation.  He  indicts  and  denounces  the  Report  of 
the  Select  Committee,  as  false  and  deluding,  on  these  several 
counts : 

1.  It  states  only  that  "  the  site"  of  Trinity  Church  at  the 
head  of  Wall  street,  is  a  vested  and  consecrated  property, 
omitting  to  include  the  grave-yard  and  cemetery  adjoining. 

2.  It  omits  to  recite  certain  clauses  of  the  Charter  of  1697, 
necessary  to  the  question  touching  the  "  admission "  of  Cor- 
porators into  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church. 

3.  It  suppresses  an  important  word  in  the  clause  of  the 
Charter  of  1G97,  which  it  professes  to  quote  verbatim. 

4.  It  reasons  inconclusively  from  its  falsified  premises. 

5.  It  has  adduced  an  act  of  the  Colonial  Legislature,  as 
being  potential,  which  is  abrogated  and  annulled  as  unconsti- 
tutional. 

6.  It  has  appealed  to  prejudices  and  to  covetousness,  hold- 
ing forth  expectations  to  the  inhabitants  of  New  York,  which 
have  no  good  foundation. 

7.  It  has  neglected  to  state  the  true  grounds  on  which 
Trinity  Church  applied  for  the  Law  of  1814. 

8.  It  has  substituted  the  arguments  of  an  advocate,  in  the 
place  of  the  reasons  of  the  Cori)oration. 

9.  It  has  held  up  these  arguments,  so  substituted,  as  in- 
ducements to  the  two  Houses  of  the  Legislature  to  pass  the 
Law  of  1814. 

10.  It  has  alleged  those  arguments  as  "  inducements  "  to 
the  said  law,  though  the  law  was  passed  by  the  two  Houses  of 
the  Legislature,  months  before  the  arguments  were  penned 
and  published. 

11.  It  has,  on  these  fallacious  representations,  insinuated 
the  odious  charge  of  fraudulent  conduct  in  the  Vestries  of 
Trinity  Church,  since  1813. 

12.  It  has  falsified  figures  in  its  own  representation  of  the 
Estate  of  Trinity  Church,  by  its  method  of  estimating  the 
"  present  value  "  of  said  estate. 


31 


13.  It  has  committed  all  these  wrongs  on  Trinity  Church, 
on  the  Honorable  Senate,  on  the  Community,  on  Justice, 
Truth,  and  Honor — knowingly,  and  wilfully,  and  shamefully. 
I  have  the  duty  of  subscribing  myself, 
A  Member  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 


1 


I 


A  LETTER 

FROM 

THE  HON.  D.  D.  BAENARD, 

ADDRESSED  TO 

THE  HON.  ERASTUS  BROOKS,  SENATOR,  &C., 

ON  THE  PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST 

TRINITY  CHURCH, 

NOW  PENDING 

m  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  STATE. 


ALBANY: 
VAN  BENTHUTSEN,  PRINTER,  407  BROADWAY. 
1857. 


LETTER,  &a 


Amany,  March  23,  1857. 
The  Hon.  Erastus  Brooks,  Senator,  §-c. 

Dear  Sir — From  the  seclusion  in  which  I  am  living,  I  have 
watched,  with  a  good  deal  of  interest  and  solicitude,  the  proceed- 
ings had  within  the  last  two.  years  in  the  Body  of  which  you  are 
an  honored  member,  and  the  movements  and  labors  of  a  select 
committee  of  your  number,  in  reference  to  the  aifairs  and  the 
property  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New- York.  The  final 
action  of  this  committee  has  forced  on  my  mind  the  conclusion, 
that  there  is  8ome  danger  that  a  monstrous  wrong  and  mischief 
may  be  perpetrated  in  the  hurried  and  closing  hours  of  the 
present  Legislative  Session.  I  hope  it  may  not  be  thought  too 
presuming  in  me  that  I  should  seek  an  occasion  to  offer  to  the 
members  of  the  Legislature  some  suggestions  and  views  on  the 
general  subject  to  which  the  doings  of  the  select  committee  of 
the  Senate  relate.  I  have  thought  I  might  do  this,  without  im- 
propriety, in  the  form  of  a  letter  addressed  to  you^  and  I  add 
mj  name,  because  if  any  responsibility  attaches  to  such  a  com- 


4 


muuication,  I  do  not  desire  that  any  doubt  should  arise  as  to 
whom  it  shpuld  rest  upon.  I  address  my  letter  to  you,  because 
I  know  you,  and  entertain  for  you  a  very  high  respect,  and  a 
very  strong  personal  regard.  I  do  not  know,  nor  have  I  under- 
stood, what  your  opinions  may  be,  if,  in  the  muliiplieity  of  your 
official  labors,  you  have  already  formed  any,  in  regard  to  what 
the  committee  has  done,  or  the  action  it  now  proposes  to  the 
Senate.  What  I  do  know  is,  that  on  all  questions,  whether  of 
private  right  or  of  public  justice,  your  views  are  apt  to  be  sound, 
enlightened,  and  conservative.  I  have  thought  it  probable,  as 
most  in  accordance  with  your  known  habits  and  character,  if 
you  have  not  yet  found  time  to  enter  on  a  thorough  examination 
of  the  matters  connected  with  the  labors  of  the  committee  re- 
ferred to,  that  you  have  kept  your  mind  free  and  open  to  truth 
and  to  all  just  convictions  on  the  subject.  And  the  object  I  have 
in  view  in  addressing  you  will  be  fully  accomplished,  if  I  shall 
be  able  to  afford  you  or  others  any  aid  towards  forming  wise 
and  just  conclusions  in  the  premises.  I  will  add  only  in  this 
connection,  that  I  stand  in  no  other  relation  to  Trinity  Church 
than  that  of  au  independent  citizen,  and  Episcopalian,  of  the  same 
State.  I  am  not  her  counsel,  or  her  adviser,  and  least  of  all,  her 
partizan.  I  am  not  in  her  secrets,  if  she  has  any  ;^  and  if,  as  some 
seem  to  suppose,  she  forms  a  centre  for  extreme  opinions  on 
Church  questions ,  I  am  not  of  her  party.  I  am  not  of  any  party 
In  the  Church,  and  do  not  intend  to  be.  I  am  a  churchman,  and 
nothing  above  and  nothing  below  that  mark.  I  see  in  Trinity 
Church  a  stewardship  of  means,  as  I  think,  both  legally  and  pro- 
videntially provided,  for  the  accomplishment  of  great  good,  in 
the  future  as  in  times  past,  to  the  cause  of  pure  religion  through 
the  forms  and  ministrations  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  in  pro- 
moting Christian  education  and  Christian  charities.  I  have  not 
been  accustomed  to  suppose  that  her  affairs  have  always  been 
managed  with  the  utmost  possible  efficiency,  or  without  some 
occasional  errors.  But  I  have  a  better  opinion  of  her  now, since 
I  have  read  the  testimony  that  has  been  elicited  before  the  select 
committee,  than  ever  before.    Watched,as  she  always  has  been, 


5 


and  always  must  be,  with  ten  thousand  jealous  and  longing  eyes 
constantly  upon  her  and  her  possessions,  it  would  be  difficult 
for  her  to  go  very  far  wrong,  even  if  the  high  and  blameless 
character,at  all  times,  of  those  who  havehad  thereponsible  agency 
of  her  affairs,  were  less  a  guaranty  for  her  than  it  is.  And  while 
I  do  not  see  how  it  is  possible  to  take  the  property  in  her  posses- 
sion, or  the  management  of  it,  out  of  her  hands,  without  the 
grossest  violation  of  all  the  securities  which  surround  all  private 
property  and  private  rights,  I  do  not  find  anything,  even  if  this 
were  possible,  in  the  attitude  towards  this  subject,  of  those  (for 
many  of  whom  personally  I  entertain  the  highest  respect,)  who 
propose  to  assume  to  themselves  the  property  of  Trinity  Church 
and  the  responsibilities  attached  to  it,  calculated  to  impress  me 
with  the  belief  that  the  world,  or  any  part  of  it,  would  be  bene- 
fited by  the  change. 

The  first  thing  to  which  I  wish  to  call  your  attention,  is,  that 
the  matter  before  the  Senate  for  its  action,  on  the  report  of  its 
select  committee,  is  one  strictly  affecting  private  rights.  The 
case  is  shortly  and  simply  this.  The  parish  of  Trinity  Church, 
in  New- York,  is  an  incorporated  religious  and  eleemosynary 
body.  It  is  a  legal  person,  known  in  law  by  a  legal  name.  It 
possesses,  and  claims  to  own,  certain  property.  It  exercises, 
and  claims  the  right  to  exercise,  exclusive  control  over  this  pro- 
perty, through  its  own  officers,  elected  by  its  own  corporators, 
members  of  the  parish,  whom  alone  it  admits  to  the  franchise  of 
voting  for  such  officers.  Now  certain  persons,  inhabitants  of  the 
city,  outside  of  the  parish  of  Trinity,  and  not  members  of  it,  are 
understood  to  set  up,  each  for  himself,  individually,  a  claim  to 
be  part  owner,  legally  and  beneficially,  of  the  property  in  the 
possession  of  Trinity  Church,  and  to  be  legally  entitled  to  the 
franchise  of  voting  for  the  officers  of  that  parish.  The  bill 
introduced  into  the  Senate  by  its  committee,  has  for  its  object  to 
put  these  persons  in  possession  of  what  they  are  understood  to 
claim  as  their  rights  of  property  and  franchise,  or  to  give  them 
facilities  and  advantages,  with  strong  Legislative  encouragement, 
for  practicing  and  enforcing  those  rights.  You  will  see,  there- 
fore, that  the  bill  is  one  having  relation  strictly  to  private 


» 


6 


rights,  and  nothing  else.  They  are  not  the  less  private  because 
a  corporation  and  corporators  are  concerned.  The  dispute,  so 
far  as  there  really  is  anything  to  dispute  about,  concerns  the 
property  of  a  private  corporation  and  the  franchise  of  its  corpo- 
rators, to  both  which,  certain  individuals,  not  recognized  by  the 
corporation,  set  up  a  claim.  If  it  was  a  case  of  disputed  title  to 
lands  under  deeds  of  conveyance,  between  natural  persons,  or  of 
disputed  inheritance  among  heirs  under  a  will,  that  would  not 
be  more  strictly  a  case  of  disputed  private  rights  than  this  is. 

Now,  I  think  it  is  by  no  means  impertinent  to  enquire  how 
the  Senate  has  come  to  be  possessed  of  this  case.    I  believe  I  am 
correct  in  saying,  that  up  to  the  time  of  the  committee  bringing 
in  the  bill  referred  to,  no  petition  or  memorial  of  any  sort  or 
description  whatever,  from  any  person  or  persons  whatever,  had 
been  presented  to  the  Senate  in  relation  to  the  subject.  The 
Senate  had  not  been  asked  to  move  in  this  matter  of  private 
rights    Tne  movement  appeared  to  originate  within  that  body 
itself,  and  so  far  as  that  body  had  official  notice,  without  any 
prompting  from  without.    But  it  is  now  apparent  that  the  origi- 
nal movement,  in  April,  1855 — calling  on  the  vestry  of  Trinity 
Church  for  a  Report,  was  an  insidious  one,  and  did  not  disclose 
the  real  design.    It  is  quite  manifest  now  that  the  real  object 
was,  to  come,  by  slow  and  covert  approaches,  to  the  measure  of 
private  benefit  now  proposed  by  the  committee.    The  same 
cpvert  design  was  steadily  pursued  in  the  reference  of  the  ves- 
try's Report  to  a  select  committee,  and  in  the  authority  procured 
for  the  sitting  of  that  committee  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate, 
with  the  vague  and  roving  commission  "  to  examine  into  the 
matters  connected"  with  that  Report.    The  whole  protracted 
proceeding  has  resulted  just  as  it  was  no  doubt  originally  in- 
tended it  should  result,  in  a  bill  to  give  private  parties  relief  ir» 
a  matter  of  private  rights.    If  any  parallel  case  can  be  found  in 
the  history  of  the  legislation  of  this  State,  I  am  not  aware  of  it. 
The  practice  of  legislation  all  over  this  country,  is,  that  private 
bills,  and  bills  afiecting  private  rights  and  interests,  shall  be 
introduced  only  on  petition  or  memorial  of  the  parties.  Mem- 


7 


bers  of  a  legislative  body  do  not  move  in  behalf  of  private  claims 
and  interests  unless  a  case  be  made  for  them  from  without,  any 
more  than  judges  take  the  initiative  of  suits  for  private  parties  in 
their  own  courts.  Such  a  practice  is  as  unseemly  and  as  danger- 
ous in  the  one  case  as  it  would  be  in  the  other.  I  do  not  know 
what  you  or  others  may  think  of  it,  but  I  think  the  ordinary 
forms  of  legislation  have  been  grossly  misemployed  in  this  case, 
and  the  dignity  of  the  Senate  abused,  by  the  manner  in  which 
it  has  been  drawn  into  this  proceeding.  And  I  think  that  any 
member  of  the  Senate  who  has  voluntarily  made  himself  the 
instrument  of  private  persons  to  carry  forward  their  enterprise, 
while  they  were  carefully  concealing  themselves  from  the  pub- 
lic view,  and  h-om  the  body  of  which  he  is  a  member — at  least 
until  concealment  was  no  longer  an  object — has  greatly  over- 
stepped the  bounds  of  duty  and  propriety  belonging  to  his  ofiice. 
The  dignity,  the  safety  and  the  purity  of  legislation  are  put  at 
hazard  by  a  proceeding  of  this  sort,  and  it  well  becomes  the 
Senate,  as  the  least  that  is  due  to  its  own  honor,  to  look  with 
extreme  and  high  distrust  on  a  measure  of  private  import  like 
this,  introduced  in  so  irregular  and  so  unbecoming  a  manner. 

I  learn  from  the  published  proceedings  of  the  Legislature, 
that  the  parties  in  interest  in  this  measure,  first  presented  them- 
selves to  the  Senate  in  a  memorial,  on  the  14th  instant,  the  day 
after  the  bill  from  the  Committee  had  been  introduced.  This 
was  the  first  time  the  Senate  had  heard  their  voice  in  the  mat- 
ter in  any  way,  except  as  the  first  Report  of  the  committee 
showed  that  some  of  them  had  previously  appeared  as  witnesses 
before  the  committee.  A  few  days  earlier  these  parties  held  a 
public  meeting  in  New-York,  and  appointed  a  managing  com- 
mittee of  their  number,  and  that  committee  made  a  publication, 
setting  forth  "the  precise  nature  and  extent  of  the  object  of 
their  application  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State  for  the  repeal  or 
amendment  of  the  act  of  1814."  That  application,  however 
was  not  presented  to  the  Legislature  until  the  14th  instant.  Yet 
it  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  somebody  outside  of  the  Senate, 
hooded  and  masked  from  the  public  view,  and  from  the  eye  of 


8 


tlie  Senate,  has  liad  this  case  in  hand,  and  has  conducted  and 
managed  the  whole  proceedings  from  the  first  movement  in  the 
Senate  in  1855.  The  call  upon  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  for 
a  Report;  the  referring  of  that  Report  to  a  committee;  the  com- 
position of  that  committee;  the  clothing  of  the  committee  with 
such  curiously  comprehensive  powers;  the  plan  of  operations  in 
New-York  to  make  use  of  a  committee  of  the  Senate  of  the 
State  to  get  up  materials  for  a  Report  intended  to  be  very  damag- 
ing to  the  character  of  the  opposite  party  in  this  question  and 
contest  about  private  rights ;  the  Report  thus  got  up,  and  based 
on  testimony  supplied  by  outside  agencies;  the  employment 
of  certain  newspapers  to  circulate  in  a  condensed  form  the  vil- 
lifying  matter  of  that  Report;  and  finally  the  second  Report  of 
the  committee,  and  the  bill  accompanying  it;  all  this  has  been 
part  of  one  concerted  scheme  of  operations,  set  on  foot  and 
steadily  pursued  and  managed,  directed  and  controled  by  some 
person  or  persons  outside  of  the  Senate. 

After  the  signal  failure  of  the  parties  in  interest  in  this  mat- 
ter before  the  Legislature  ten  years  ago,  when  they  went  straight 
to  their  object  by  memorial,  and  in  an  open,  direct  and  manly 
way,  claiming  the  same  rights  of  property  and  the  same  franchise 
as  are  claimed  for  them  now,  and  asking,  as  is  asked  now,  for 
the  repeal  or  modification  of  the  act  of  1814,  and  when  the 
whole  subject  was  investigated  on  both  sides  in  the  most 
thorough  manner,  with  surpassing  ability,  and  with  the  aid  of  the 
most  eminent  counsel  in  the  State;  after  that  failure,  it  does 
not  appear  very  clear  how  these  parties  in  interest  should 
have  been  induced  to  move  in  the  matter  again  in  any  way. 
My  impression  is,  that  other  persons — not  Episcopalians,  and 
caring  nothing  for  the  Episcopal  church,  unless  it  be  to  sow 
discord  and  confusion  among  its  people,  and  if  possible  get  rid 
of  its  power  and  conservative  influence  altogether — that  other 
persons,  having  interests  and  ends  of  their  own  to  serve,  must 
have  been  engaged  in  this  movement  from  the  beginning. 
These  persons,  knowing  that  it  had  failed  before  when  the 
case  stood  simply  on  its  own  merits,  must  have  suggested  for 


9 


the  undertaking  the  kind  of  tactics  now  employed,  fitted  perhaps 
for  other  fields  of  enterprise,  but  not  for  this,  and  which,  they 
no  doubt  thought  promised  a  better  and  indeed  the  only  chance 
of  success.  The  plan  was,  as  we  now  see  plainly  enough,  to 
keep  back  the  matter  of  this  private  claim,  and  to  begin  with 
getting  up  a  preliminary  proceeding,  a  movement  which  should 
seem  to  indicate  that  some  evil  or  mischief  of  a  public  nature, 
not  known  to  everybody,  but  requiring  the  hand  of  legislative 
reform,  was  to  be  developed :  such  a  measure  as  any  Senator 
might  move  in,  without  any  special  prompting,  on  the  general 
grounds  of  patriotism  and  public  duty.  It  was  to  be  made  at 
first  to  stand  before  the  people,  and  before  the  Senate,  on  the 
ground  of  a  measure  contemplating  the  redress  of  some  great 
public  grievance  or  abuse.  The  original  Resolutions  of  April, 
1855,  being  introduced  by  a  Senator  without  petition  or  memo- 
rial from  any  quarter,  of  necessity  implied,  if  it.  was  to  be  taken 
as  a  matter  in  any  way  fit  for  legislative  initiation,  that  in  the 
opinion  of  the  mover  there  was  some  probable  ground,  in  some- 
thing Trinity  Chureh  had  done,  or  failed  to  do,  or  perhaps  in 
some  unlocked  for  event  or  occurrence,  to  require  the  Legisla- 
ture of  the  State  as  the  guardian  of  the  common  weal,  to  interpose 
on  its  own  motion  with  apropriate  remedies.  And  these  Resolu- 
tions were  framed  with  such  nice  particularity,  and  they  so  hedged 
about  and  cornered  up  the  answers  required  to  be  given,  that 
the  plain  inference  from  them  was,  that  the  mover  knew  a  great 
deal  more  than  was  safe  yet  to  reveal,  and  that  when  the  an- 
swers should  come  something  quite  astounding  would  be  dis- 
closed. 

Now,  however,  that  the  object  contemplated  from  the  begin- 
ning has  at  last  been  reached,  in  a  proposed  measure  of  relief 
to  private  parties,  resting,  if  resting  any  where,  on  a  strict 
ground  of  personal  and  legal  right,  and  nothing  else,  we  see 
how  much  there  was  that  was  hollow  and  colorable  merely,  in 
the  show  and  aspect  of  public  consideration  and  public  policy 
or  duty,  so  adroitly  thrown  around  the  previous  proceedings. 
It  is  now  reduced  to  a  positive  demonstration  that  a  harrassing 


10 


and  inquisitorial  proceeding  towards  Trinity  Cliurch  has  been 
carried  forward  for  nearly  two  years,  in  which  the  authority  of 
the  Senate  of  this  State  has  been  employed,  at  the  secret  insti- 
gation, and  under  the  secret  direction,  of  persons  outside  of  the 
Senate,  and  who,  if  outside  of  the  Episcopal  church  also,  had  no 
possible  claim  to  invoke  that  power  in  any  form  whatever. 
The  parties  in  interest  themselves  were  not  entitled  to  invoke 
that  power,  except  in  the  customary  way  of  petition,  they  hav- 
ing nothing  in  the  end  to  present  but  a  naked  claim  to  certain 
private  rights  of  property  and  privilege,  now  and  for  an  almost 
indefinite  period,  in  the  exclusive  possession  and  use  of  other 
parties,  who  deny  that  this  pretension  has  a  shadow  of  legal 
merit  or  justice  to  rest  upon. 

But  these  parties  are  now  before  the  Senate,  though  it 
must  be  all  the  while  remembered,  that  they  have  only  present- 
ed themselves  there  since  the  bill  for  their  relief  was 
brought  in.  I  ought  not  to  be  surprised,  perhaps,  to  find 
them  in  the  attitude  of  petitioners  for  the  measure  thus  intro- 
duced, but  it  is  devoutly  to  be  hoped  that  they  have  come 
into  the  case,  giving  no  sanction  whatever  to'  the  prelimi- 
nary proceedings.  You  know,  and  almost  everybody  knows, 
that  there  exists  in  the  Episcopal  church  throughout  this 
country,  some  division  of  opinion.  This  diversity  is  well 
enough  defined,  by  reference  to  what  is  popularly  talked  about 
as  the  High  Church  and  the  Low  Church  party.  I  am  happy  to 
say  there  is  nothing  in  all  this  to  break  or  disturb  the  general 
harmony  and  unity  of  the  Church;  and  I  am  persuaded  that, 
take  the  country  together,  not  one  Episcopalian  in  five  hardly 
knows  whether  he  is  of  the  one  party  or  the  other.  In  the  city 
of  New-York,  however,  circumstances  have  given  at  times  con- 
siderable sharpness  to  the  lines  of  distinction.  Trinity  Church, 
willing  or  unwilling,  has  been  set  down  as  favoring  and  leading 
the  High  Church  party,  and  being  in  possession  of  considerable 
estates,  having  several  church  edifices  and  several  clergymen,  her 
influence  has  necessarily  been  great.  Where  a  notion  prevails, 
with  much  or  little  foundation,  that  a  party  exists  on  one  side 


11 


in  any  body  of  men,  a  party  is  sure  to  exist  on  the  otter.  At  any 
rate  a  strong  and  pretty  numerous  Low  Church  party,  of  a  pretty 
marked  character,  is  found,  and  has  long  existed,  in  New-York, 
and  naturally  enough,  Trinity  Church  is  the  one  great  object 
against  which  its  jealousy  has  been  directed.  Some  of  the  purest 
men,  most  accomplished  gentlemen  and  best  Christians  of  that  city, 
or  the  world,  have  been  and  are  of  this  party.  And  I  recognize 
among  those  who  have  lately  appeared  by  their  petition,  and 
who  are  supporting  and  prosecuting  the  claim  against  Trinity 
Church,  now  before  the  Senate,  several  names  well  known  to 
me,  which  I  never  pronounce  or  think  of  without  very  high 
respect  and  regard.  But  I  have  learned  a  great  while  ago  that 
the  judgment  and  the  virtues  of  all  men,  however  elevated  and 
noble,  naturally  undergo  a  most  fearful,  and  too  often,  a  most 
damaging  ordeal,  when  the  spirit  of  party  takes  possession  of 
them,  whether  it  be  in  religion  or  politics,  in  Church  or  in  State, 
I  think  the  gentlemen  to  whom  I  refer  are  acting,  in  the  matter 
now  in  hand,  in  some  important  respects,  under  a  very  great 
delusion.  I  think  there  never  was  a  clearer  or  more  demonstra- 
ble error  than  that  of  supposing  that  they  have  any  legal  or  just 
claim  whatever  on  the  property  ot  Trinity  Church,  or  any  right 
of  control  over  it.  But  they  think  otherwise,  and  I  have  no 
right  perhaps  to  be  surprised,  though  I  do  most  deeply  regret, 
that  their  names  are  brought  to  stand  connected,  by  relation 
backwards,  with  proceedings  in  this  case  with  which  it  seems  to 
me  they  could  have  had  little  to  do,  and  which  I  must  think 
every  honorable  and  unbiassed  judgment  must  condemn. 

It  is,  as  I  suppose,  due  to  the  fact  that  there  is  a  party  in  the 
Episcopal  Chuch  in  New-York,  known  in  common  parlance  a» 
the  Low  Church  party,  taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  that 
Trinity  Church  is  assumed,  but  untruly  as  I  believe,  to  favor  ex- 
treme High  Church  principles ;  it  is  due  to  this,  and  this  alone,  that 
any  claim  like  that  now  before  the  Senate,  is,  or  ever  has  been, 
seriously  advanced.  But  while  this  party  forms  a  very  large 
majority  of  those  who  support  this  claim  whenever  it  is  set  up, 
it  is,  itself,  very  far  from  being  a  unit  in  this  regard.    I  doubt  if 


12 


one  half,  or  anything  like  it,  of  all  the  Episcopalians  in  New- 
York  who  may  be  regarded  as  favoring  the  views  of  this 
party  on  religious  questions,  either  support  or  approve  of  the 
recent  attacks  on  Trinity  Church,  or  the  efforts  now  making 
to  strip  her  of  her  property.  Certainly  very  large  numbers  of 
them  do  not>  Still  the  spirit  of  party  prevails  and  lends  to  the 
cause,  so  to  call  it,  much  of  its  energy.  Nor  is  it  any  the  less 
the  spirit  of  party  which  acts  in  the  matter,  because  some  few 
persons  may  be  found  favoring  the  object,  who  are  regarded  as 
occupying  very  elevated  seats  in  the  school  of  High  Church  prin- 
ciples. Men  of  eminent  piety  often  have  exalted  imaginations, 
and  when  schemes  for  employing  the  property  of  Trinity  Church, 
formed  outside  of  the  vestry,  have  not  met  with  all  the  encour- 
agement within  that  body,  no  matter  for  what  reason,  that  the 
projectors  have  believed  they  should  have  commanded,  it  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at  if  dissatisfactions  have  sprung  up  to  some 
extent,  as  well  among  those  who  thought  Trinity  Church  right 
in  her  church  principles,  as  among  those  who  thought  her  wrong; 
nor  that  some  such  persons  should  join  hands  with  those  who 
point  them  to  a  shorter  road  (not  supposed  to  be  a  dishonest  or 
wrong  one)  to  the  attaining  of  their  pious  objects,  than  that  they 
had  before  trodden  in  vain.  But  the  broad  truth  remains  that 
the  desire  which  has  been  felt  in  so  many  minds  in  New-York  to 
strip  Trinity  Church  of  her  power  by  stripping  her  of  her  pro- 
perty, has  had  its  origin  and  perpetual  foundation  in  party. 
This  is  bad  enough,  but  so  long  as  the  matter  rested  with  a 
party  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  which  was  kept  free  from  all  out- 
side intermeddling  and  influence,  no  danger  was  seriously  to  be 
apprehended.  Unhappily,  it  has  not  been  preserved,  as  it 
should  have  been,  from  this  outside  influence;  and  it  is  only  too 
apparent,  that  since  the  introduction  of  this  foreign  element 
into  this  business,,  the  whole  character  of  the  contest  with 
Trinity  Church  has  been  changed.  The  present  attack,  only 
now  assuming  a  shape  in  any  way  fit  for  legislative  cogni- 
zance, was  begun,  as  we  have  seen  already,  two  years  ago. 
It  was  deemed  necessary  to  commence  operations,  by  getting 


13 


up  a  popular  prejudice  and  clamor  against  Trinity  Church,  whichj 
setting  in  fii'st  strongly  in  New-York,  should  extend  to  the  coun- 
try, and  finally  come  back  in  the  form  of  public  sentiment  to  work 
upon  the  Legislature.  And  it  seems  to  have  been  a  special  point 
in  the  policy  of  those  who  have  had  the  management  of  this  affair, 
that  those  honest  and  respectable  gentlemen,  who  believe  no  doubt 
sincerely,  that,  though  not  Parishioners,  they  have  a  legal  claim 
to  act  as  Corporators  of  Trinity  Church,  should  not  be  suffered  to 
appear  as  petitioners  to  the  Legislature,  or  to  seem  to  manifest, 
in  any  public  way,  an  interest  in  the  matter,  until  the  case  had 
been  brought  to  a  certain  stage  of  preparedness  for  final  action. 
This  stage  was  at  last  reached  in  the  presentation  of  the  second 
Eeport  of  the  Select  Committee  of  the  Senate. 

I  deeply  regret  to  say,  what  truth  and  an  imperative  obliga- 
tion to  speak  it  boldly  in  a  case  like  this,  compel  me  to  say,  that 
I  think  both  the  Reports  of  the  committee  in  this  case,  when  they 
shall  come  to  be  understood  in  their  true  character,  as  they  must 
be  before  a  great  while,  cannot  fail  to  meet  with  universal  repro- 
bation. They  seriously  compromit  the  character  of  the  Senate. 
For  the  last  one  especially,  I  do  not  understand  how  any  possible 
excuse  or  apology  can  be  made.  The  testimony  then  before  the 
committee,  certainly  had  left  not  an  inch  of  ground  for  the  mis- 
conceptions,— if  they  were  such — the  exaggerations,  injurious  im- 
putations, and  the  stale,  but  carefully-gathered  gossip  of  the  first 
Report  to  rest  upon.  Nobody  would  object  that  these  Reports 
should  have  insisted,  no  matter  bow  strongly,  on  what  were 
deemed  errors  or  mistakes  in  judgment  on  the  part  of  the  Vestry 
of  Trinity  Chui'ch.  Nobody  would  feel  surprised  or  offended  that 
honest  differences  of  opinion  should  have  been  found  to  exist 
about  the  best  mode  of  administering  the  affairs  of  a  great  reli- 
gious foundation.  But  here,  charges  were  preferred,  gross  and 
palpable  as  mountains,  however  sometimes  poorly  disguised  in 
the  shape  of  wily  insinuations  and  sly  implications.  The  first 
Report  was  filled  with  them,  and  they  are  not  corrected  in  the 
second  Report,  but  on  the  contrary  are  reproduced  and  insisted 
on,  in  the  face  of  the  clearest  and  fullest  testimonyj  and  of  all 


14 


fairness  and  all  truth;  charges  against  Trinity  Church,  her  Ves- 
try, her  ministry,  and  all  connected  or  associated  with  her  in  her 
afifairs,  of  nothing  short  of  falsehood,  fraud,  deceptive  practice, 
oppression  and  corruption  in  the  use  of  her  accidental  power  and 
patronage,  and  of  gross  neglect  of  all  sacred  duty  while  hoarding 
her  vast  and  ill-gotten  wealth,  and  sitting  down  at  her  ease,  a 
bloated  and  pampered  proprietor  of  untold  millions,  of  which 
she  will  not  spare  enough  even  to  keep  her  own  poor  from 
starvation  ]  I  speak  of  the  substance  of  things  in  these  two  Re- 
ports. No  man  can  sit  down  to  the  perusal  of  them,  having  no 
previous  knowledge  of  the  case,  and  not  going  beyond  them  to 
look  into  the  testimony  connected  with  either,  without  rising 
from  the  reading  with  a  vague  but  undoubting  feeling  that  Tri- 
nity Church,  which  he  will  take  to  be  the  wealthiest  and  most 
powerful  religious  corporation,  perhaps,  in  all  the  world,  is  a 
very  monster  of  corruption  and  deformity.  That,  I  take  it,  is 
exactly  the  impression  intended  to  be  produced.  The  man- 
agers of  the  machinery  of  this  case,  knew  very  well  that 
where  500  persons  would  read  these  Reports,  or,  what  would  be 
enough  for  their  purpose,  the  abstracts  of  them,  published  and 
scattered  broad-cast  in  the  newspapers,  not  ten,  or  five  even, 
•would  ever  see  the  testimony.  And  while  such  as  I  have  de- 
scribed is  the  character  of  Trinity  Church,  as  sketched  to  the 
conception  of  the  casual  reader  in  these  Reports,  I  venture 
to  say  that  no  man  of  common  understanding,  before  wholly  un- 
informed on  the  subject,  could  go  through  the  testimony  in  the 
case,  taking  the  whole  of  it  together,  and  passing  by  the  Reports, 
without  coming  to  the  conclusion,  after  allowing  for  all  errors  of 
judgment,  and  feeling,  perhaps,  grave  doubts  about  the  wisdom 
in  all  instances  of  the  measures  and  methods  of  administration, 
and  of  charitable  distribution,  which  had  been  adopted,  that  it  is 
doubtful  if  another  religious  foundation,  as  amply  endowed  as 
this,  could  be  found  in  the  world,  where  for  a  full  cen- 
tury and  a  half  together,  and  coming  down  to  the  present  hour, 
there  had  been  manifested  so  much  of  absolute  purity,  of  entire 
disinterestedness,  of  unswerving  integrity,  of  generous  and  hu- 
mane consideration,  and  of  uniform  action,  performed  under  a 


IS 


high  and  noble  sense  of  moral  and  religious  obligation,  as  have 
characterised  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  conduct  of  the 
affairs  of  that  corporation.  Such  is  the  contrast  between  the 
testimony  in  this  case,  and  the  Reports  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Senate,  which  profess  to  stand  on  the  basis  of  that  testimony. 

But  I  must  ask  you  to  consider  now,  how  the  labors  of  this 
committee,  in  taking  testimony  and  making  reports  founded  upon 
it,  look,  when  they  are  compared  with  the  measure  of  legislative 
relief,  which  they  have  proposed  to  the  Senate  ]  I  speak,  of 
course,  of  their  proposed  repeal  of  the  second  section  of  the  act 
of  1814.  The  action  proposed  is,  to  give  legislative  authority  to 
all  Episcopalians,  members  of  other  parishes  in  New-York,  and 
entitled  to  vote  in  their  own  parishes,  to  vote  for  vestrymen  of 
Trinity  parish;  and  this  is  done  on  the  ground  that  they  are, 
and  always  have  been,  however  for  a  time  unjustly  obstructed 
in  the  exercise  of  their  right,  legal  corporators  of  Trinity  Church, 
and  on  no  other  ground  whatever.  You  cannot  fail  to  see — no- 
body can  fail  to  see  who  is  willing  to  see  the  truth — that  the 
question  whether  these  persons  are  corporators  or  not,  is  purely 
a  legal  question.  If  corporators  they  should  be  allowed  to  vote; 
if  not  corporators  they  should  not  be  allowed  to  vote.  Now, 
will  you,  or  will  any  sane  man,  tell  me  what  the  various  mat- 
ters contained  in  the  reports  of  the  committee,  and  pui-porting 
to  be  based  on  the  testimony  they  have  taken,  have  to  do  with 
this  question  2 

Let  me  advert  to  some  of  these  matters,  not  with  minute  par- 
ticularity, but  substantially,  that  we  may  see  how  much  connec- 
tion they  have  with  the  question  which  the  Legislature  is  asked 
to  decide. 

One  matter,  which  figures  largely  in  the  Reports,  relates  to 
the  question  of  the  amount  and  value  of  the  property  of  Trinity 
Church.  It  is  a  gross  impeachment  of  th^  honesty  of  the  body 
of  which  you  are  a  member,  to  suppose,  as  the  Reports  seem  to 
assume,  that  the  vote  of  one  member  of  the  Senate,  upon  the 
simple  question  whether  A.  B.  is  or  is  not  a  legal  corporator  of 
Trinity,  could  be  influenced  one  way  or  the  other  by  the  con- 


16 


sideration  that  the  property  of  the  corporation  is  or  is  not  very 
large.  Whether  it  is  |10,G00,or  $10,000,000,  is  a  thing  which  no 
Senator  ,who  has  any  decent  regard  either  for  himself  or  for  the  laws 
of  the  landj  would  take  into  account  in  deciding  such  a  question. 

Another  point  made  in  the  reports  relates  to  the  comparatively 
small,  and  as  the  committee  seem  to  think,  gradually  diminish- 
ing number  and  character  of  the  corporators  of  Trinity  Cliurch. 
This  is  specially  referred  to  in  the  second  Report,  and  urged  as  a 
reason  for  increasing  the  number  of  corporators,  and  of  course, 
by  inference,  as  a  reason  why  the  Senate  should  declare  that  the 
members  of  other  parishes  in  New-York,  legal  corporators  or  not, 
shall  be  corporators  of  the  parish  of  Trinity.  I  do  not  think  in 
my  life  I  ever  heard  a  more  daring  proposition.  When  the  cor- 
porators of  Trinity  Church  fail,  it  will  be  time  enough  for  the 
State,  but  not  through  the  Legislature,  to  look  after  the  estate  of 
that  corporation;  and  when  the  question,  and  the  only  question 
submitted  by  the  committee  itself,  in  the  bill  they  have  brought 
in,  on  the  disputed  point  under  consideration  is,  whether  certain 
persons  are  or  are  not  legal  corporators  of  Trinity  Church,  to 
urge  the  Senate  to  declare  them  to  be  so — to  bring  in,  in  truth, 
an  armv  and  mob  of  coiporators  to  seize  upon  Trinity  Church 
and  her  possessions — not  on  the  ground  that  such  is  their  legal 
right,  but  upon  the  consideration  that  it  w^ould  be  well,  for 
economical  and  prudential  reasons,  to  increase  the  number  of 
corporators,  surpasses  anything  I  have  yet  heard  of,  in  any  of- 
ficial quarter  in  this  country,  in  the  spirit  of  bold  agrarianism. 

As  for  other  matters  of  complaint  and  charge  against  the 
vestry  of  Trinity  Church ;  that  they  have  sought  to  conceal  or 
falsify  facts  in  relation  to  its  property,  or  the  value  of  it;  that 
they  have  failed  in  the  charitable  and  religious  duties  and  obli- 
gations resting  on  them;  that  they  have  acted  from  corrupt,  im- 
proper or  unworthy  ^motives  in  bestowing  or  withholding  its 
bounties;  that  they  have  built  and  endowed  no  Tree  Churches; 
that  they  have  built  costly  churches  of  their  own  to  the  neglect  of 
the  necessitous,  and  the  general  poor  all  over  the  city,  and  even 
of  their  own  poor;  that  they  have  aimed  improperly  to  restrict 


17 


the  number  of  its  corporators;  that  their  mortgages  on  churches, 
and  their  stipends  to  clergymen,  have  been  devised,  and  are 
used,  as  a  means  of  breaking  down  all  integrity  and  independent 
opinion  in  the  Episcopal  Church ;  as  to  all  this,  and  whatever 
else  of  a  kindred  character  is  to  be  found  iflilhe  reports  of  the 
committee,  villifying  and  scandalising  the  vestry  of  Trinity 
Church — men  whose  character  and  standing  in  New-York  will 
compare  favorably  with  the  highest  and  purest  of  all  that  that 
city  numbers  among  her  people,  and  whose  abundant  vindication 
Is  found  in  the  universal  respect  which  they  command;  as  to  all 
this  sort  ot  loathsome  matter,  of  which  these  reports  are  full  to 
nauseousness;  what  in  the  name  of  wonder  has  all  this  to  do 
with  the  simple  question,  whether  certain  persons  claiming 
that  right,  are  or  are  not,  legal  corporators  of  Trinity  Church, 
and  entitled  to  vote  in  her  elections  1  Has  the  committee  of 
the  Senate  really  supposed  that  the  members  of  that  body  could 
be  brought  to  decide  so  grave  a  question  of  private  right,  and  of 
property,  on  such  considerations  as  these  1  Yet  somebody  has 
thought  so,  else  why  have  they  been  gathered  up  with  so  much 
care  and  at  so  much  cost,  and  why  are  they  found  so  carefully 
embodied,  and  repeated,  and  insisted  on  in  these  Reports  1 

If  the  committee,  or  if  any  others  think  that  the  affairs  of 
Trinity  Church  and  the  property  she  holds,  could  be  better  ad- 
ministered, and  disposed  of,  more  advantageously  for  her  good, 
and  for  the  common  good,  by  others,  than  by  her  own  vestry  ;  if 
they  think  a  Low  Church  administration  would  be  sure  to  put 
every  thing  exactly  right ;  if  they  think  that  Trinity  Church 
ought  to  endow  and  enrich  a  few  churches  with  land,  instead  of 
lending  a  helping  hand  to  a  great  many  churches  with  money  ; 
if  they  think  she  should  build  and  maintain  poor  churches  for 
the  poor,  while  the  rich  sit  apart  in  lordly  edifices  ;  if  they  think 
instead  of  having  the  vestry  of  Trinity  elected  by  the  parishioners 
of  Trinity,  that  it  would  be  a  just  and  proper  measure,  and  a 
peaceful,  orderly  and  edifying  spectacle,  to  set  a  mob  of  5,000  or 
10,000  persons  from  fifty  other  parishes,  to  elect  a  vestry  for  her; 
if  they  hold  such  opinions,  or  any  opinions  like  them,  why 

2 


18 


nobody  that  I  know  of  has  any  desire  to  interrupt  them  in  the 
free  enjoyment  or  expression  of  them.  Only  do  not  let  them 
imagine  themselves,  or  attempt  to  make  others  believe,  that  these 
opinions  can  be  employed  to  make  weight  in  the  balance  of  any 
man's  judgment  vfhiBTX  he  is  brought  to  pronounce  ofBcially  on  the 
question  whether  certain  persons,  so  claiming,  are,  or  are  not, 
legal  corporators  of  Trinity  Church. 

I  do  not  enter  into  any  examination,  in  detail,  of  the  matters 
set  forth  in  the  Reports  of  the  committee  as  impeachments  of 
Trinity  Church.  With  what  I  have  said  already  bearing  on  the 
general  subject,  I  let  all  that  pass.  If  it  had  been  the  object  of 
the  committee  in  the  execution  of  their  roving  commission,  to 
collect  testimony  to  show  that  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church 
had  become  extinct  for  want  of  corporators,  or  that  she  was  em- 
ploying her  property  for  other  purposes  than  those  intended  by 
the  donor,  or  contrary  to  the  policy  of  the  State,  their  labors  in 
hearing  witnesses  on  these  subjects,  and  in  commenting  on  the 
matter  gathered  up,  might  have  been  deemed  an  acceptable  and 
not  wholly  improper  service  to  the  State  ;  though,  in  all  cases, 
if  the  State  is  to  assert  a  claim  to  lapsed  or  confiscated  property, 
or  if  a  corporation  is  to  be  deprived  of  control  over  its  funds  for 
diverting  them,  or  is  to  be  dissolved  for  abuse  of  its  franchises, 
the  Attorney  General,  and  the  Courts,  are  the  agents  and  powers 
proper  to  be  employed  for  these  objects,  and  not  the  Legislature. 
But  there  could  have  been  no  purpose  of  the  kind  here  suggested 
on  the  part  of  the  committee,  in  taking  such  testimony  as  is  de- 
tailed in  their  first  Report.  They  propose  to  the  Senate  no  action 
to  justify  such  a  conclusion.  Indeed,  any  suggestion  of  that  sort 
on  the  basis  of  any  testimony  taken  by  them,  would  have  been 
simply  absurd.  We  are  thrown  back  then,  upon  the  measure  of 
relief  they  have  proposed  in  behalf  of  private  parties,  on  a 
private  claim,  as  affording  justification  and  excuse,  if  any  can  be 
offered,  for  this  proceeding  of  the  committee.  I  have  referred 
already,  in  general  terms,  to  the  principal  matters  presented  in 
their  Reports,  as  based  on  the  relations  of  the  witnesses  examined 
by  them,  to  show  that  they  are  wholly  irrelevant  and  im- 


19 


pertinent  to  the  question  or  claim  of  private  rights  brought 
before  the  Senate.  On  this  point  I  only  desire  to  add  the 
general  and  sweeping  declaration,  that  in  all  the  voluminous 
testimony  taken  by  them  in  New-York,  and  in  whatever 
else  is  presented  as  evidence  in  their  leading  Report,  there  is 
not  one  sentence,  or  fragment  of  a  sentence,  or  word,  or  syllable, 
which,  as  evidence,  ought  to  have,  or  which  can  properly  have, 
or  which  will  be  allowed  to  have  in  any  honest,  enlightened  and 
just  mind,  called  to  act  in  the  case  in  an  official  and  responsible 
capacity,  any  the  remotest  bearing  or  weight  in  determining  the 
question  brought  before  the  Senate  by  the  committee  for  its  de- 
cision, whether  persons  outside  of  Trinity  parish,  who  now  set 
up  such  a  claim,  are,  or  are  not,  legal  corporators  of  Trinity  and 
entitled  to  vote  in  her  elections.  I  go  further  and  say  that  no 
man,  be  he  a 'Senator  or  a  Judge,  or  in  whatever  position  of 
authority  he  may  be,  who  is  called  upon  to  pass  on  that  question, 
has  any  right  to  approach  the  subject,  or  is  fit  to  approach  it, 
unless  he  has  first  discarded  from  his  mind  every  possible  im- 
pression or  consideration  calculated  to  affect  his  judgment, 
arising  out  of  the  main  parts  of  this  testimony,  or  out  of  the  free 
charges,  inferences  and  injurious  implications  based  upon  it,  in 
which  the  committee  have  indulged.  And  in  this  comprehensive 
declaration  I  make  no  exception  of  that  part  of  the  proofs  pre- 
sented by  the  committee,  the  most  extraordinary  of  all,  where  we 
find  a  most  honorable  and  estimable  gentleman,  and  a  highly 
valued  friend  of  my  own,  brought  in  to  give  his  corporal  oath  to 
the  history  of  Trinity  Church,  and  the  history  of  the  Act  of  1814, 
all  existing  in  records  and  papers  in  possession  of  the  committee, 
or  just  as  accessible  to  them  as  to  him,  and  to  give  his  corporal 
oath  also  to  the  law  and  the  rights  of  parties  arising  out  of  these 
records  and  papers.  Of  all  the  methods  of  determining  grave 
questions  of  law,  and  settling  disputed  legal  rights  between  con- 
tending parties,  this  one  resorted  to  by  the  committee,  of  submit- 
ting them  to  the  sworn  declarations  and  opinions  of  a  witness,  is 
certainly  the  most  comprehensive  and  summary  ever  yet  heard 
of ;  but  I  think  the  committee  is  not  likely  to  be  honored  by 


30 


having  it  adopted  or  followed  as  a  precedent.  The  testimony 
received  by  the  committee  to  prove  that  "  dissatisfaction"  existed 
in  reference  to  the  act  of  1814, 1  set  down  in  the  same  category 
with  the  rest.  Acquiescence  or  non-acquiescence  in  a  given 
status  of  rights  is  more  a  question  of  law  than  of  fact.  If,  there 
being  no  impediments  to  action,  no  attempt  is  made  in  more  than 
thirty  years,  to  give  legal  effect  to  a  naked  and  dormant  claim  of 
right,  this,  in  law,  for  that  period  of  time,  would  be  acqui- 
escence, and  no  amount  of  mere  "dissatisfaction"  would  make 
it  otherwise.  As  for  the  action  that  was  taken  in  this  case  in 
1846  and  1847,  after  a  profound  slumber  and  silence  of  thirty 
years,  it  is  all  of  record  ana  speaks  for  itself. 

And  this  leads  me  now  to  say,  that  when  in  1846  and  1847, 
the  identical  claim  now  brought  forward  by  the  committee,  of  a 
right  on  the  part  of  other  Episcopalians  than  those  of  the  parish 
of  Trinity,  to  participate  in  its  elections,  was  presented  to  the 
Legislature,  no  testimony  on  the  subject  was  taken  or  asked  for. 
Nobody  then  deemed  it  necessary,  or  even  proper,  to  encumber 
the  case  with  such  incongruous  matter  as  has  been  introduced 
on  the  present  occasion,  or  to  attempt  to  win  opinions  for  the 
claim  upon  any  other  grounds  than  those  of  its  own  essential 
and  proper  merits.  Those  presenting  the  claim  at  that  time, 
were  the  parties  in  interest  themselves,  acting  in  their  own 
name,  and  they  held  the  claim  in  their  own  hands,  and  under 
their  own  control.  They  directed  nothing  to  be  done,  and  suf- 
fered nothing  to  be  done,  that  was  not  characteristic  of  honor- 
able men,  for  such  they  were.  They  employed  eminent  and 
honorable  counsel  to  conduct  their  case  from  the  beginning,  who 
were  as  incapable  as  themselves  of  using  or  countenancing  a 
resort  to  any  base  means  or  appliances  whatever.  Without  the 
testimony  of  a  single  witness,  there  was  not  a  fact,  or  circum- 
stance, or  inference,  or  principle,  or  argument,  or  consideration, 
which  could  then,  or  can  now,  be  legitimately  and  rightfully  em- 
ployed in  behalf  of  this  claim,  or  pressed  in  any  way  into  its  ser- 
vice, which  was  not  employed  and  used  by  them  on  that  occa- 
sion to  the  fullest  extent  and  in  the  amplest  manner.    The  claim 


21 


now  stands  in  behalf  of  much  the  same  parties  as  then  presented 
and  urged  it  on  the  attention  of  the  Legislature.  Many  of  the 
same  names  are  now  before  the  Senate,  asking  its  favorable  con- 
sideration to  the  claim,  presented  there,  however,  for  the  first 
time  only,  since  the  bill  of  the  committee  came  in.  Up  to  that 
time,  they  had  not  appeared  before  the  Senate,  nor  until  a  very 
short  time  previous  had  they  appeared  in  any  manner,  (except 
that  some  of  them  had  testified  before  the  committee,  as  I  suppose 
they  had  been  summoned  to  do,)  to  give  public  countenance 
and  support  to  those,  whoever  they  may  have  been,  who  under 
cover  of  this  claim,  and  by  the  aid  of  a  Committee  of  the  Senate, 
have  been  so  long  carrying  on  harrassing  and  hostile  operations 
against  Trinity  Church.  But  they  were  willing,  in  1846-7,  to  let 
their  legal  claim  to  a  share  in  the  property  and  franchises  of  Trin- 
ity Church,  rest  upon  its  proper  merits;  I  must  be  allowed  to  hope 
they  are  willing  to  let  it  rest  on  the  same  merits  now.  On  that  oc- 
casion the  claim  was  examined,  under  every  circumstance  favor- 
able to  the  fullest  and  most  deliberate  consideration,  by  able  Com- 
mittees, one  of  the  Senate,  and  another  of  the  House,  one  in  1846 , 
and  the  other  in  1847.  Both  these  Committees  reported  against  the 
claim,  the  latter,  a  Committee  on  the  judiciary,  unanimously, 
and  in  both  Houses  the  Reports  were  accepted  and  sanctioned. 
One  member  of  the  Committee  of  the  Senate  made  a  Minority 
Report  in  favor  of  the  claim — an  able  paper,  prepared,  no  doubt, 
by  the  eminent  counsel  of  the  claimants,  and  presenting  the  ar- 
guments In  their  favor  in  the  strongest  light  in  which  the  highest 
ingenuity  and  skill  could  place,  them.  And  I  refer  to  this  Mi- 
nority Report  the  more  particularly,  because  it  was  the  imme- 
diate occasion  of  the  most  effectual  and  thorough  silencing  of 
this  claim.  It  is  ten  years  since  it  was  laid  to  rest.  The  Report 
alluded  to,  gave  occasion  to  a  pamphlet  published  in  review  of  it, 
written,  as  I  understand,  by  a  gentleman  now  no  longer  living, 
but  who  never  had  his  superior  as  a  lawyer  in  this  State.  This 
pamphlet  is  in  existence,  and  you  and  others  may  recur  to  it. 
I  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  its  arguments  are  unanswerable.  I 
cannot  think  that  it  leaves  a  loop  to  hang  a  doubt  upon. 
The  whole  case  in  its  legal  aspects  is  presented.  No  disinterest- 
ed and  unpredjudiced  mind,  and  certainly  no  legal  mind,  can 


22 


read  it,  as  it  seems  to  me,  without  assenting  to  its  conclusions 
It  demonstrates,  so  that  cavil  itself,  I  should  think,  must  be 
silenced,  that  the  claim  in  the  case  is  without  legal  foundation, 
and  that  the  Legislature  has  no  right  or  constitutional  power  to 
grant  the  relief  asked  for.  Undoubtedly  this  review  was  the 
foundation  of  the  unanimous  rejection  of  the  claim  by  the  judi- 
ciary committee  of  the  Assembly,  in  1847,  in  a  Report,  itself  a 
paper  of  great  ability,  and  conclusive  on  the  whole  subject. 
After  all  this,  I  cannot  well  understand  how  the  parties  in  interest 
in  this  cjsim,  having  literally  nothing  new  in  the  way  of  legal 
merit  or  abstract  justice  to  offer  in  svipport  of  it,  and  subject  to  no 
promptings  from  without,  should  ever  have  brought  forward  the 
claim  again. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  enter  upon  any  extended  view  of  the 
legal  questions  involved  in  this  case,  but  I  desire  to  present  for 
your  consideration  a  general  and  comprehensive  statement  mere- 
ly, of  the  matter  in  its  legal  aspects.  You  will  find,  if  your 
leisure  shall  allow  you  to  look  at  them,  the  whole  law  of  the 
case  most  clearly  and  ably  presented  in  arguments  already  pub- 
lished, to  some  of  which  I  have  already  adverted  in  this  letter 
The  most  recent  of  these  arguments,  and  a  very  admirable  and 
conclusive  one  it  is,  is  that  of  the  counsel  who  appeared  for 
Trinity  Church  before  the  committee  of  the  Senate  lately  in  this 
city. 

The  Senate  is  called  upon  in  this  case  to  consider  and  decide 
very  difficult  and  very  important  matters.  The  general  question 
in  the  case  is,  whether  the  parishioners  of  Trinity  Church  hold, 
as  they  have  held  and  exercised  for  a  century  and  a  half,  the 
franchise  of  voting  in  those  elections  exclusively  of  all  others 
or  whether  other  Episcopalians  of  New-York,  parishioners  of 
other  legally  incorporated  churches,  and  not  parishioners  Of 
Trinity  Church,  have  also  the  legal  right  to  vote  in  the  elections 
of  this  parish. 

Trinity  Church  is  a  religious  corporation.  She  possesses  a 
large  estate  devoted  to  pious  uses.  She  is  a  parish  in  which  the 
work  of  the  Christian  ministry  is  carried  on  as  in  other  parishes, 
only  on  a  much  larger  scale  than  in  any  other  parish  in  this 


23 


country.  She  has  four  church  edifices  instead  of  one,  in  which 
religious  services  are  performed  by  nine  ministers.  The  legal 
custody,  care  and  management  of  all  her  property  and  all  her  af- 
fairs,both  temporal  and  spiritual,  rest  with  certain  legally  constitu- 
ted and  elected  officers;  these  are  the  rector,  two  wardens  and 
twenty  vestrymen.  The  wardens  and  vestrymen  are  elected 
annually  ;  they  call  and  induct  the  rector,  and  choose  the  as- 
sistant ministers.  Up  to  the  present  time,  the  parishioners  of 
Trinity  Church  have  elected  the  wardens  and  vestrymen,  just  as 
the  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  every  other  Episcopal  church  in 
the  State  are  elected  by  its  own  parishioners.  The  parishion- 
ers of  Trinity  Church  entitled  to  vote,  are  a  little  over  three 
hundred.  There  are  fifty  other  legally  constituted  parishes  in 
New- York,  and  the  parishioners  of  all  these  entitled  to  vote  for 
parish  officers,  talien  together,  are  probably  not  less  than  eight 
thousand.  If  these,  or  any  number  at  all  like  it,  are  to  be 
brought  in  to  vote  for  the  parish  officers  of  Trinity  Church,  the 
consequence  is  apparent.  The  control  and  government  of 
the  parish  of  Trinity  will  be  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the  parish- 
ioners of  Trinity ;  the  parishioners  of  other  churches  will 
elect  her  officers  ;  the  government  of  Trinity  Church,  the  pro- 
perty, the  sacred  edifices  and  the  ministers  of  Trinity  Church, 
will  all  be  in  the  hands  and  under  the  control  of  officers  whose 
constituency  will  be,  not  the  parishioners  of  Trinity,  but  the 
parishioners  of  other  churches.  The ,  outside  constituency  thus 
proposed  to  be  brought  in,  is  a  constituency  antagonist  to  that 
of  Trinity  Church.  It  is  so  designed.  The  object  is  to  take 
possession  and  control  of  the  property  of  Trinity  Church,  and 
this  is  to  be  done  by  taking  possession  of  the  government  of  the 
corporation,  involving  of  necessity  the  control,  direction  and 
management  of  all  her  affairs,  internal  and  external,  religious 
and  charitable,  spiritral  and  temporal.  It  will  thus  be  seen 
that  the  matter  now  brought  before  the  Senate,  and  which  the  Se- 
nate is  asked  to  consider  and  decide,  is  one  of  the  most  important 
in  all  its  relations  and  bearings  ever  presented  before  any  public 
body,  or  tribunal,  in  this  country  for  decision.   Ou  the  face  of  it 


24 


it  is  a  matter  wholly  unfit  for  any  legislative  body  to  touch  or 
meddle  with.  None  but  the  highest  Judicial  tribunals  of  the 
land,  are  in  any  manner  qualified,  or  fit,  to  deliberate  or  adjudi- 
cate upon  it.  But  I  shall  recur  to  this  point  again  in  the  course 
of  my  remarks. 

The  rights  of  the  parties  to  this  controversy  are  to  be  deter- 
mined by  relerence  to  certain  public  acts,  and  the  construction 
and  legal  effect  of  those  acts.    These  are  : 

1st.  The  Charter  of  Trinity  Church,  of  1697. 

2d.  The  Colonial  Act  of  1704. 

3d.  The  Grant  of  Queen  Anne,  of  1705. 

4th.  The  Legislative  Act  of  1784. 

5th.  The  Act  of  1788. 

6th.  The  Act  of  1814. 

The  claim  now  set  up  is,  that  under  the  Charter  and  subse- 
quent Acts,  and  up  to  the  passing  of  the  Act  of  1814,  all  Episco- 
palians of  New-York,  though  parishioners  of  separate  and  inde- 
pendent churches  legally  constituted,  and  not  parishioners  of 
Trinity  Church,  having  the  same  qualifications  as  voters  in  their 
own  parishes  as  the  parishioners  of  Trinity  Church  are  required 
to  have  as  voters  in  that  parish,  were  legal  corporators  of 
Trinity  Church,  and  legally  entitled  to  vote  in  the  elections  for 
wardens  and  vestrymen  of  that  parish. 

It  is  also  claimed  that  the  act  of  1814,  assumed  to  divest  all 
such  Episcopalians  as  are  above  described,  of  this  franchise 
which  was  a  vested  right,  and  that  the  Act  was  for  that  reason 
unjust  and  unconstitutional.  The  repeal  of  that  part  of  the  Act 
of  1814  is  therefore  asked  for,  which  purports  to  cut  them  off 
from  this  franchise. 

In  reference  to  this  Act,  it  is  admitted  by  the  committee  in  their 
Report,  that  if  it  was  a  legislative  contract  with  the  Corpora- 
tion of  Trinity  Church,  and  rights  have  become  vested  under  it, 
the  Legislature  has  no  power  to  invalidate  that  contract,  by  re- 
pealing the  Act.  But,  in  proposing  to  repeal  the  second  section 
of  that  act,  they  insist  that  nothing  in  that  section  "  has  any  of 
the  qualities  of  a  contract."    It  is  this  second  section  alone  of 


25 


the  Act  of  1814,  which  is  now  brought  into  this  controversy.  It 
is  this  section  alone  which  cut  off,  if  anything  cut  off,  any  vested 
franchise  belonging  to  anybody.  It  is  this  section  alone  which 
is  referred  to  when  that  Act  is  pronounced  unconstitutional. 
And  when,  therefore,  the  committee  propose  to  repeal  this  sec- 
tion of  the  Act,  they  propose  to  repeal  all  of  that  Act  which  they, 
or  as  far  as  I  know,  anybody  else,  have  ever  held  to  be  unconstitu- 
tional. When,  therefore,  the  committee  mystify  things  by  de- 
claring that  "  inasmuch  as  they  have  come  to  the  conclusion  to 
introduce  a  bill  to  amend  the  act,  and  not  to  provide  for  its  re- 
peal, this  question"  [the  question  of  the  right  and  power  of  the 
State  to  invalidate  its  own  contract,]  "  does  notarise,"  it  becomes 
us  to  take  care  that  we  and  others  are  not  misled  by  it.  It  hap- 
pens that  the  second  section  of  the  Act,  which  they  propose  to 
repeal,  is  the  only  one,  and  the  only  part  of  the  whole  Act  upon 
which  this  very  question  of  contract  does  arise. 

Now  I  propose  to  dispose  of  this  part  of  the  case  first,  and  I 
shall  do  so  in  as  few  words  as  possible.  And  let  it  now  be  under- 
stood that  when,  for  shortness,  I  speak  of  the  Act  of  1814,  I 
mean  the  second  section,  and  nothing  else.  The  second  section 
is  the  Act  and  the  Act  is  the  second  section  for  all  the  purposes 
of  this  argument. 

If  the  Act  of  1814  was  and  is  valid  and  constitutional,  it  is  un- 
disputed by  any  body,  that,  from  that  period  at  least,  the  Epis- 
copalians at  large  in  New-York,  and  not  parishioners  of  Trinity 
Church,  have  not  been,  and  are  not,  corporators  of  that  Church, 
or  legally  entitled  to  vote  in  the  elections  of  that  parish.  That 
Act  declaring  that  the  right  of  voting  in  such  elections  belonged 
to  the  parishioners  of  Trinity  Church,  declared  also  in  express 
terms  that  "  no  other  persons"  should  be  entitled  to  that  fran- 
chise. 

But  it  is  claimed  that  that  Act  was  unconstitutional,  as  affect- 
ing the  vested  right  to  this  franchise  of  the  Episcopalians  at 
large,  held  at  that  period.  If  such  a  right  then  existed,  it  ex- 
isted under  the  contract  previously  made  or  confirmed  by  the 
State  with  the  corporation.  No  doubt  the  point  as  to  who  should 


26 


and  who  should  not  be  corporators,  and  entitled  to  vote  at  cor- 
poration elections,  was  a  part,  and  an  important  part,  of  the 
original  contract  with  Trinity  Church  It  was  just  so  important 
that  it  could  not  be  changed  by  the  State  without  the  assent  of 
the  corporation.  But  let  it  be  observed  that  a  Charter  makes 
a  contract  between  the  State  and  the  corporation — not  between 
the  State  and  individual  corporators.  The  contract  is  with  the 
legal  person,  or  entity,  to  which  a  name  is  given  that  it  may 
be  capable  of  contracting.  The  two  parties  to  the  contract  are 
the  State  and  the  corporation,  by  its  corporate  name.  And  just 
as  these  parties  were  capable  of  entering  into  the  original  contract 
so  are  they  capable,  together,  of  altering  or  modifying  that  con- 
tract. I  do  not  admit  that  any  essential  change  whatever 
was  made  by  the  Act  of  1814,  as  to  who  should  and  who  should 
not  be  voters  in  the  elections  of  Trinity  Church.  I  hold  it  to 
be  clearly  demonstrable  that  none  was  made.  But  if  there  was, 
it  is  equally  clear  and  demonstrable  that  it  was  such  a  change 
in  the  contract  as  the  State  and  the  corporation  had  a  right  to 
make.  The  Act  of  1814  was  passed  at  the  special  and  formal  re- 
quest of  the  corporation,  represented  by  its  official  organs  and 
agents.  They  had  a  right  to  speak  for  the  corporation.  The 
State  spoke  for  itself.  The  Act  was  the  result;  and  if  it  pro- 
duced the  change  attributed  to  it,  this  was  as  much  a  contract 
as  the  original  charter,  and  just  as  binding  on  the  respective 
parties  to  it.  In  the  making  of  this  contract  the  corporators, 
whoever  they  were,  few  or  many,  parishioners  of  Trinity  Church 
only,  or  Episcopalians  of  New-York  at  large,  were  legally  repre- 
sented by  the  corporation,  as  the  corporation  was  legally  repre- 
sented by  its  officers.  In  making  a  contract  with  a  corporation, 
individual  corporators  are  not  and  cannot  be  known.  They  are 
merged  in  the  body  corporate.  The  committee  say  the  Act  of 
1814,  "  subverted  vested  rights."  If  it  did  it  subverted  such 
rights  with  the  assent  of  the  corporation,  and,  through  the  cor- 
poration, with  the  assent  of  the  corporators.  If  it  did,  then  such 
was  the  bargain.  If  the  Episcopalians  at  large  were  corporators 
before  that  act,and  entitled  to  vote  as  such  in  the  corporation  elec- 


27 


tions,  then  the  oflB.cers  of  the  corporation,  regularly  elected,  and  re- 
presenting the  corporation,  represented  them  as  members  of  the 
corporation,  whether  they  voted  in  the  elections  or  not.  If  they  had 
a  right  to  vote  and  did  not  vote,  it  was  their  own  fault  and  neg- 
lect. If  they  had  a  right  to  vote,  it  did  not  depend  on  the  will 
of  the  rector,  wardens,  and  vestrymen,  whether  they  should  vote 
or  not.  The  courts  were  open  to  them,  and  if  the  right  to  vote 
belonged  to  them,  and  they  were  hindered  in  its  exercise,  they 
should  have  enforced  their  right  through  the  courts.  Not  hav- 
ing done  this,  and  being  corporators,  if  such  they  were,  I  repeat 
they  were  concluded  by  the  acts  of  the  corporation  as  much  as 
if  they  had  elected  its  officers  by  their  own  vote.  The  assent  of 
all  the  corporators  to  the  change  in  the  charter  or  contract,  if 
any  change  there  was,  is  an  inference  of  law  from  the  act  itself, 
and  must  so  stand  unless  the  contrary  be  made  explicitly  to  ap- 
pear by  some  authentic  act  of  dissent  on  their  part,  at  or  near 
the  time  of  the  transaction,  of  a  character  to  assert  and  vindi- 
cate, in  a  legal  way,  any  personal  rights  affected  by  it.  I  state 
all  this  as  a  clear  principle  of  law,  needing  no  authority  for  its 
support. 

Coming  then  to  matters  of  fact;  I  suppose  it  is  doubtful  if 
there  were  twenty  persons — perhaps  not  ten — in  all  New- York 
at  the  time  of  the  passing  of  the  act  of  1814,  who  had  any 
objection  to  make  to  it.  There  were  extremely  few  at  that  time 
who  had  any  notion  whatever  that  Trinity  Church  had  any  cor- 
porators out  of  her  own  parish.  This,  as  an  idea  having  any 
prevalence,  is  comparatively  a  modern  discovery.  Two  or  three 
persons  only  had  ever  attempted  to  assert  practically  such  a 
claim.  The  Act  was  passed  with  full  deliberation,  and  with 
ample  notice.  It  was  acquiesced  in  at  the  time,  and  the  idea 
that  anybody  was  deceived  into  acquiescence,  never  broached  by 
anybody  for  thirty  years  after  the  Act  was  passed,  is  too  puerile 
for  consideration.  For  thirty  years,  acquiescence,  amounting  to 
dumb  silence,  went  on.  For  thirty  years  no  act  of  dissent  was 
manifested,  nobody  appeared  in  the  courts,  or  before  the  Legis- 
lature, or  anywhere  else  where  such  a  claim  could  be  made,  to 


28 


assert  that  any  rights  had  been  lost  under  that  Act.  After  thirty 
years,  such  a  claim  was  set  up,  and  at  once  most  effectually 
silenced.  Ten  years  more  of  acquiescence  passed,  and  now 
again,  after  forty  years  and  more,  that  Act  is  sought  to  be  dis- 
turbed. And  if,  after  that  lapse  of  time,  it  could  be  disturbed 
on  any  of  the  pretences  set  up  against  it,  it  is  impossible  to  see 
how  anything  in  the  way  of  property  or  rights  amongst  us, 
should  ever  be  deemed  to  be  settled,  or  in  a  condition  of  legal 
protection  and  repose. 

It  is  clear  to  demonstration,  as  it  seems  to  me,  that  the  Act  of 
1814  was  and  is  a  constitutional  and  valid  law.  It  was  compe- 
tent for  the  Legislature  to  pass  it,  as  it  did,  at  the  official  and 
formal  request  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church.  The  pur- 
pose for  which  it  was  asked  was  explicitly  stated  in  their  peti- 
tion. They  stated  that  the  other  Episcopal  church  corporations 
in  the  city  did  not  "  possess,  or  claim,  any  right  for  themselves 
or  their  members,  to  vote  in  the  elections,  or  to  regulate  the 
affairs  of  Trinity  Church;  but  that,  nevertheless,  a  few  indi- 
viduals belonging  to  such  separate  corporations,  have  recently 
pretended  to  claim  that  right."  They  spoke  of  the  attempt  of 
"  two  or  three  "  such  persons  to  vote  on  a  recent  occasion ;  they 
said  that  such  attempts  could  not  fail  "  to  produce  strife  and 
litigation,  and  to  foster  and  keep  alive  pretensions  of  the  most 
unreasonable  nature,  and  of  the  most  mischievous  tendency;" 
and  they  asked  for  this  Act  in  order  that  "all  doubts  respecting 
the  persons  entitled  to  vote  for  church  wardens  and  vestrymen 
of  Trinity  Church  should  be  finally  obviated  and  settled."  The 
Act  was  passed  precisely  as  asked  for,  and  precisely  for  the  ob- 
jects stated.  It  was  passed  in  the  precise  form  and  manner  to 
constitute  a  legislative  contract,  if  ever  there  was  one.  As  a 
contract,  on  the  part  of  the  corporation,  it  carried  in  law  the 
assent  of  the  corporators  along  with  it;  and  nothing  has  ever 
appeared,  or  can  be  shown,  to  impeach  that  legal  conclusion. 

Such  being  the  Act  and  its  character,  standing  as  a  contract 
between  the  State  and  this  private  corporation — a  contract  to 


29 


settle  and  determine  any  doubts,  if  any  had  arisen,  or  should 
arise,  as  to  who  should  and  who  should  not  be  entitled  to  vote 
at  the  corporation  elections — it  is  hardly  conceivable  that  any- 
body who  pretends  to  know  anything  of  the  foundations  on 
which  property  and  private  rights  rest  in  this  country,  should 
maintain  that  the  Legislature  has  a  right,  without  the  assent  and 
against  the  will  of  the  corporation,  to  put  an  end  to  that  con- 
tract by  repealing  or  modifying  the  Act. 

In  general  terms  even  the  Committee  of  the  Senate  agree  that 
"  a  Sovereign  State  has  no  power  to  pronounce  its  Acts  so  far  in- 
valid as  to  affect  a  right  of  property  or  its  enjoyment  which  has 
become  vested."  And  yet  as  a  commentary  on  this  text,  they 
have  presented  to  the  Senate,  a  Bill  by  which  they  propose  to  bring 
In,  from  without  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church,  a  new  voting  con- 
stituency, 8000  strong,  to  overwhelm  the  corporation,  and  its  own 
voting  constituency  of  some  300  parishioners,  in  whose  hands  the 
present  law  and  contract  of  the  State  place  the  exclusive  right  and 
power;  the  undisguised  purpose  being  to  give  to  this  outside,  and, 
so  far  as  those  who  are  pressing  this  measure  can  make  it  so,  this 
antagonistic  force,  the  power  to  impose  of&cers  and  a  government 
of  its  own,  upon  the  Corporation  and  Parish  of  Trinity,  which 
shall  take  possession  and  control  of  all  its  property,  and  assume 
the  management  of  its  affairs.  And  the  Committee  seem  to  think 
— at  least  they  would  have  others  believe — that  there  is  nothing 
in  all  this  "to  affect  a  right  of  property  or  its  enjoyment  which 
has  become  vested" !  They  go  so  far  as  to  assert  that  "  by  the 
proposed  amendment  the  rights  of  the  Corporation  and  its  powers 
and  franchises  are  not  to  be  disturbed."  Here  is  a  corporation, 
a  religious  body,  forming  a  Parish,  which  under  a  valid  and 
existing  law  and  contract  of  the  State,  of  a  very  special  character 
enjoys  the  right  and  franchise  of  providing  itself  with  its  own 
officers  and  government,  through  a  voting  constituency  consist- 
ing exclusively  of  the  people  themselves  who  are  to  be  the 
subjects  of  such  government,  members  of  the  parish,  and  nobody 
else,  and  by  this  means  of  securing  to  itself  the  possession  and 


30 


enjoyment,  the  control  and  management,  of  the  estates  with  which 
it  is  endowed,  and  the  orderly  and  peaceful  direction  and  regu- 
lation of  all  its  afifairs  ;  and  when  it  is  proposed  to  place  all  that 
this  Corporation  and  Parish  possesses  and  enjoys — all  its  rights 
of  self-government,  and  all  its  rights  of  property,  and  the  pro- 
perty itself — under  the  absolute  power  and  control  of  other 
parties,  foreign  to  the  parish,  this  solemn  business  is  introduced 
with  the  declaration  that  "the  rights  of  the  Corporation,  and  its 
powers  and  franchises  are  not  to  be  disturbed  "  by  it ! 

I  cannot  find  that  the  committee  in  their  Report  any  where 
claim  in  terms,  that  the  Act  of  1814  was  void.  I  believe  they  no 
where  apply  this  term  to  the  Act.  This  is  probably  not  acciden- 
tal. They  call  it  "unjust,"  and,  in  one  instance,  "unconstitu- 
tional they  say  it  "  subverted  vested  rights."  They  say  also, 
that  what  they  propose  to  do  is  to  "  restore  the  corporators  who 
were  disfranchisedhj  the  Act  of  1814,  and  the  rights  of  those  who 
were  corporators  under  the  charter."  The  committee  talk  about 
this  subject  in  legal  language,  and  must  be  supposed  to  under- 
stand the  terms  they  use.  If  the  Act  of  1814  was  void  ab  initio 
from  want  of  constitutional  power  in  the  Legislature  to  pass  it,  then 
of  course  it  is  void  now,  and  never  for  a  moment  has  had  any 
validity.  It  did  not  disfranchise  any  body  ;  it  did  not  take  away 
the  rights  of  any  corporators.  Those  who  were  corporators 
before  it  passed,  were  equally  corporators  after  it  passed;  have 
been  corporators  all  the  while,  and  are  corporators  now.  There 
never  has  been  a  moment  when  they  could  not  have  asserted  and 
maintained  their  rights  in  the  courts.  They  may  do  so  now. 
Even  the  lapse  of  forty  years  is  no  bar  or  impediment  to  their 
right.  A  void  act  of  the  Legislature  gains  no  validity  or  force 
by  lapse  of  time.  If  this  act  was  void,  no  rights  were  lost  by  it, 
and  none  were  gained  by  it,  to  anybody.  It  did  not  exclude 
those  whom  it  assumed  to  exclude,  and  it  did  not  give  exclusive 
rights  to  those  to  whom  it  assumed  to  give  exclusive  rights. 
Both  parties  stand  to-day,  in  every  legal  respect,  precisely  as  they 
stood  before  1814.    Nothing  is  to  be  taken  by  any  body,  and 


31 


nothing  is  to  be  lost  by  any  body,  from  lapse  of  time  under  this 
void  act.  The  case  presents  no  point  of"  adverse  possession  "  to 
embarrass  any  corporator.  There  is  nothing  in  the  mere  fact  of 
a  corporator  neglecting  to  vote  for  forty  years  to  disqualify  him 
from  exercising  his  right.  Adverse  possession  and  adverse  rights 
might  arise  from  lapse  of  time  under  the  Act  considered  as  a 
valid  enactment,  subject  only  to  a  legal  dissent,  at  or  near  the 
time  of  passing  it,  by  corporators  claiming  to  be  injured  by  it ; 
but  there  can  be  no  such  thing  under  it  considered  as  a  void  Act. 
It  is  manifest  that  the  committee  did  not  care  to  ask  the  Senate  to 
repeal  this  Act,  on  the  ground  that  in  their  opinion  it  was  void, 
while  it  has  not  been  so  adjudged  by  any  court,  but  on  the  con- 
trary is  insisted  on  as  valid  by  parties  who  hold  and  exercise 
under  it  the  most  valuable  and  important  rights  and  privileges. 
This  would  be  to  ask  the  Senate  to  exercise,  not  legislative  but 
judicial  power — a  judicial  power  too  the  most  transcendant  ever 
exercised  by  our  highest  tribunals  ;  to  assume  jurisdiction  over 
parties,  over  private  property,  over  private  rights,  over  questions 
of  fact  and  questions  of  law  between  litigant  parties,over  questions 
of  the  construction  and  validity  of  statutes,  and  finally  to  assume 
the  right  to  summon  a  preceding  Legislature  of  the  State  into  its 
presence  and  pronounce  its  doings  void  for  a  violation  of  the  con- 
stitution. The  committee,  it  is  presumed,  did  not  suppose  that  any 
legislative  body  could  be  brought  to  exercise  so  unseemly  and  dan- 
gerous a  power.  They  have  contented  themselves,  therefore,  with 
pronouncing  the  act  of  1814  "unjust,"  and  even  "unconstitu- 
tional," but  not  void  :  for  though  "  unconstitutional,"  they 
represent  it  as  still  having  validity  enough  to  disfranchise  corpo- 
rators whom  they  propose  to  restore  to  the  rights  lost  by  them 
under  the  act. 

But  the  committee  has  had  very  awkward  alternatives  to  deal 
with  in  this  matter.  They  treat  the  Act  of  1814  as  if  it  had 
some  sort  of  validity,  and  on  that  ground  they  ask  for  its 
repeal.  The  Legislature  cannot  be  asked,  and  certainly  could 
not  undertake  to  pronounce  it  void,  and  on  that  ground  to  re- 
peal it.    That  would  be  a  judicial  act,  and  not.  legislative;  the 


32 


committee,  therefore,  stop  just  a  breath  short  of  pronouncing  it 
void.  But  while  they  attribute  a  certain  validity  to  the  Act,  they 
at  the  same  time  deny  the  only  ground  on  which,  upon  the 
assumptions  they  make,  its  validity  rests.  They  insist  that  the 
Act  took  from  large  numbers  of  corporators  their  vested  rights. 
If  it  did  so,  then  the  only  ground  on  which  its  validity  can  be 
maintained  is,  that  it  was  in  the  nature  of  a  contract,  to  which 
the  corporation  assented,  and  the  corporators  also,  as  a  presump- 
tion of  law.  But  the  committee  positively  deny  that  it  has 
"  any  of  the  qualities  of  a  contract."  And  if  it  have  not,  then  the 
Act  was  void  in  its  inception,  for  its  violation  of  vested  rights. 
The  committee  hover  between  positions,  not  one  of  which  is 
found  safe  to  stand  on.  If  the  contract  is  admitted,  the  validity 
of  the  Act  is  admitted,  and  then  it  must  needs  be  conceded  that 
the  Legislature  has  no  constitutional  power  of  repeal  without 
the  consent  of  the  corporation;  therefore  the  contract  is  denied. 
If  the  Act  had  no  validity,  then  it  did  not  divest  any  corporators 
of  their  rights,  and  no  legislative  interposition  could  be  re- 
quired to  restore  what  was  never  lost ;  therefore,  it  is  held  to 
have  some  little,  undefined  validity.  The  act  is  not  quite  void, 
nor  altogether  valid.  It  is  not  so  void  as  to  leave  the  corpora- 
tors, whom  it  assumed  to  disfranchise,  corporators  still;  and 
yet  it  is  so  near  void  as  to  be  unconstitutional.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  not  valid  in  such  a  sense  (the  sense  of  a  Contract,)  as 
to  be  beyond  the  legislative  power  of  repeal,  and  yet  is  valid 
enough  to  subvert  vested  rights ! 

But  the  question  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  this  whole 
case  is  whether  Episcopalians  of  New-York,  not  being  parishion- 
ers of  Trinity  Church  were  legal  corporators  of  Trinity  Church, 
and  entitled,  with  the  other  qualifications  required,  to  vote  at 
the  Easter  elections,  under  the  original  charter  of  1697,  and  so 
continued  down  to  1814.  A  full  and  thorough  examination  of 
the  Charter  and  all  the  public  Acts  bearing  on  this  question,  and 
of  the  whole  body  of  the  law  applicable  to  the  subject,  and  to  the 
various  points  and  considerations  arising  necessarily  out  of  it, 
would  be  a  labor  fit  to  be  undertaken  only  before  some  high 


33 


Judicial  tribunal,  having  the  patience,  and  the  requisite  legal 
ability,  and  legal  habits  of  investigation,  and  whose  proper  pro- 
vince it  should  be  to  hear  the  whole  case  with  a  view  to  a  solemn 
adjudication  upon  it.  I  shall  enter  here  on  no  such  extended  dis- 
cussion of  it.  I  think  a  view  of  the  question  may  be  presented 
which,  in  comparatively  few  words,  and  avoiding  legal  techni- 
calities and  subtelties,  shall  comprehend  the  case,  and  afford  an 
easy  solution  of  whatever  difficulty  has  ever  honestly  arisen 
about  it. 

It  is  evident,  I  think,  that  honest  minds  have  been  misled  in 
this  matter  chiefly  through  the  corporate  name  bestowed  by  the 
original  Charter  of  Trinity  Church  upon  the  corporate  body 
created  by  it,  taken  in  connection  with  some  of  the  recitals  in 
that  instrument.  This  name,  and  these  recitals,  have  been  dwelt 
upon,  while  other  matters  in  the  same  instrument,  quite  as  im- 
portant, have  received  little  attention. 

At  the  time  of  granting  the  Charter,  a  church  edifice  had 
already  been  erected  in  New-York,  though  not  yet  completed, 
and  those  who  had  been  engaged  and  interested  in  the  erection  had 
petitioned  the  Governor  of  the  Province  that  this  same  church 
edifice  "  might  be  made  Parochial.'''  That  edifice  was  designed 
for  the  accommodation  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  who  were 
of  the  communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  then  very  few  in 
number,  and  a  charter  of  incorporation  for  the  church,  and  such 
inhabitants,  was  asked  for  accordingly.  The  charter  declared 
that  this  edifice,  and  certain  grounds  adjoining,  should  be  "  the 
Parish  Church  and  Churchyard  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church,''^ 
within  the  city  of  New-York,  and  should  be  forever  dedicated 
to  the  service  of  God,  and  applied  for  all  time  to  the  use  and 
behalf  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  who  were  of  the  Church  of 
England.  It  declared  that  there  should  be  a  Rector,  and  a  per^ 
petual  succession  of  Eectors,  "  to  have  the  care  of  souls  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  said  Parish;"  and  it  proceeded  to  incorpo- 
rate the  Rector  and  inhabitants  by  the  name  of  "  the  Rector  and 
inhabitants  of  our  said  city  of  New-York  in  communion  of  our 
Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  now  established  by  our  laws." 
It  declared,  moreover,  that  this  church  edifice  and  ground  ad- 

3 


34 


joining  should  be  "  the  sole  and  only  Parish  Church  and  Church 
Yard  of  the  city  of  New-York." 

Notv  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  it  was  in  the  contemplation  of 
this  Charter,  that  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York,  not 
only  those  then  inhabiting,  but  all  who,  in  all  time  might  inhabit 
the  city,  answering  to  a  certain  description y  and  maintaining  a  cer- 
tain relation,  then  and  now  perfectly  well  understood  in  the 
Church  of  England,  and  in  the  Episcopal  Church  of  this  country, 
should  be  included  in  the  benefits  and  privileges  of  this  incor- 
poration. They  must  be  of  the  Church  of  England.  This  was 
one  condition :  and  another,  equally  important  and  indispen- 
sible,  was  that  they  should  be  Parishioners  of  "  the  Parish  of 
Trinity  Church."  This  is  the  consideration  which  is  too  apt  to 
be  left  out  of  the  case.  It  was  positively  stipulated  that  there 
should  be  no  other  Parish  in  the  city.  This  was  to  be  "  the  sole 
and  only  Parish."  Whether  it  was  then  thought  that  one  small 
Parish  Church,  and  one  small  Parish  Churchyard,  would  be  suf- 
ficient for  all  the  Episcopal  inhabitants  of  the  city,  (I  shall  use 
the  term  Episcopal  for  shortness,)  for  all  time,  or  not,  it  is  clear 
that  it  was  thought  one  Parish  would  be  enough.  No  Parish 
could  be  incorporated  under  the  English  Government,  without 
a  special  charter;  and  the  Government  could  grant  no  charter 
for  another  Parish  in  New-York,  without  the  consent  of  Trinity 
Parish.  This  was  the  contract.  But  with  the  consent  of  this 
corporation,  nobody  can  doubt  that  another  Parish  might  have 
been  incorporated  within  the  city,  at  any  time  when  it  should 
have  l)ecome  apparent  to  all,  that  the  city  had  outgrown  the  ac- 
commodation and  convenience  of  a  single  Parish.  No  such  exi- 
gency arose  during  the  period  of  the  British  rule.  Had,  how- 
ever, such  an  event  happened,  and  another  Parish  been  incor- 
porated, of  course  all  Episcopalians  thus  incorporated,  or  volun- 
tarily joining  themselves  to  the  new  Parish  and  Corporation, 
would  cease  to  be  members  of  the  Parish  and  Corporation  of 
Trinity  Chiirch,  supposing  them  to  have  previously  belonged  to 
it.  Nobody  can  doubt  or  dispute  this.  Nor  does  it  follow,  by 
any  means,  that  all  Episcopalians  residing  in  New-York,  though 
no  other  incorporated  Parish  existed  there,  were,  or  must  neces- 
sarily be.  Parishioners  and  Corporators  of  Trinity  Church.  An 


35 


instance  occurred  at  an  early  period  to  show  this.  There  was  a 
Chapel  in  the  Fort  of  the  city,  sometimes  used  as  such  and  some- 
times not,  but  which  Gov.  Hunter,  in  his  time,  caused  to  be  put 
in  good  order,  and  where  the  Chaplain  of  the  forces  regularly 
performed  divine  service.  Here  it  seems  the  Governor  and  some 
of  the  officers  of  his  government  were  accustomed  to  attend  ser- 
vice, and  to  receive  the  communion,  instead  of  occupying  their 
places  in  Trinity  Church,  as  had  been  the  common  custom  of  the 
Governors  and  chief  ofl&cers  of  the  Government  before.  No  doubt 
some  dissatisfaction  existed  with  the  Rector,  Mr.  Yesey.  Now, 
in  1714,  ai  an  election  for  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  in  Trinity 
Church,  some  disturbance  was  created  by  some  of  these  officers 
and  friends  of  the  Governor,  who  had  deserted  Trinity  Cliurch 
as  regular  attendants  and  communicants,  and  gone  to  the  Chapel 
in  the  Fort,  presenting  themselves  as  entitled  to  vote  in  the  elec- 
tion. They  ranged  themselves  with  the  opposition  when  a  divi- 
sion of  numbers  was  called  for,  and  were  promptly  and  very 
sharply  rebuked  by  the  Rector  for  their  presumption.  No  special 
rejection  of  their  vote  was  made  or  required,  because  the  oppo- 
sition, in  the  act  of  dividing,  was  found  to  be  feeble  and  ineffectual ; 
but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Rector,  as  the  presiding  officer, 
was  prepared  to  reject  their  vote  if  that  had  become  important.* 
There  needs,  in  truth,  only  one  thing  to  be  taken  into  view 
and  kept  steadily  in  mind,  to  solve  any  possible  difficulty  arising 
upon  the  language  of  the  charter  of  Trinity  Church.  It  was  a 
Parish  that  was  incorporated,  and  nothing  else.  It  was  the 
Parishioners  of  that  Parish,  together  with  the  Rector,  who  were 
made  corporators,  and  nobody  else.  It  was  expressly  named  as 
"the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church,"  and  a  Rector  was  appointed  to 
it,  who,  with  his  successors,  should  have  "/Ae  care  of  souls  of  the 
inhabitants  of  that  Parish."  The  "inhabitantsof  the  Parish,"  and 
"the  inhabitants  of  the  city,"  of  the  Episcopal  communion,  were 
identical  and  reciprocal  terms;  and  this,  not  only  because  the 
Parish  and  city  had  then,  as  it  has  now,  the  same  territorial 
breadth  and  boundaries,  but  because  the  Episcopal  inhabitants 
of  the  city  were  expected  to  be,  and  required  to  be,  without 
exception.  Parishioners  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church,  and 

•Address  of  the  Triends  of  Gov.  Hunter  to  the  Bishop  of  London.  Documentary  Hist. 
New-York,  vol.  3,  p.  264. 


/ 


36 

subject  to  the  spiritual  care  of  the  Rector  of  that  Parish.  The 
explicit  and  authoritative  provision  and  declaration,  that  the 
Rector  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church  should  have  the  "  care  of 
souls  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Parish,"  ox  the  inhabitants  of  the 
city,  incorporated  by  the  Charter,  created  of  itself,  by  force  of 
its  own  terms,  an  indispensable  condition,  restriction  and  limita- 
tion in  regard  to  the  persons  who  should  be  corporators  of 
Trinity  Church,  or  in  any  way  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  the 
Charter.  To  |be  of  the  Church  of  England  was  not  enough, 
though  inhabitants  of  the  city.  To  be  communicants  of  that 
Church  somewhere,  was  not  enough.  They  must  stand  |by 
positive  and  recognised  acts,  acts  well  understood  at  the 
time  in  the  Church,  in  that  relation  to  the  Rector,  implied 
by  that  special  and  significant  appointment  made  in  the 
Charter,  which,  under  the  name  of  "the  care  of  souls,"  made 
him  their  sole  and  only  authoritative,  spiritual  supervisor, 
director  and  instructor;  they  must  recognise  him  as  the  per- 
son appointed  by  the  Charter  to  minister  to  them  in  sacred 
things;  and  they  must  do  this  by  the  ordinary  acts  of  a  parish- 
ioner; attending  divine  service  in  the  Parish  church,  and  not 
elsewhere,  at  least  as  an  ordinary  thing,  looking  to  him,  and  not 
elsewhere,  for  the  various  services  of  the  clerical  office,  and  the 
sacraments  of  the  church;  and  especially  receiving  at  his  hands, 
or  at  least  in  the  Parish  church,  the  Holy  Communion,  without 
which  no  one  was  entitled  by  the  Charter  to  vote  at  the  Easter 
elections  for  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  the  church.  All  this  I 
hold  to  be  clear  to  demonstration;  and  we  see  by  this  precisely 
who  were,  and  who  were  not,  parishioners  of  Trinity  Church.  It 
was  "the  inhabitants  of  the  Parish"  over  whom  the  rector  had, 
by  appointment  of  the  charter,  the  care  of  souls — those  with  whom, 
by  recognized  and  well  established  acts,  he  stood  in  the  personal 
and  spiritual  relation  of  Rector,  who  were  parishioners,  and  none 
others  were  parishioners.  And  it  is  simply  because  this  has 
not  been  brought  sufficiently  into  view,  or  sufficiently  considered, 
that  so  many  persons  have  been  misled  by  the  language  used  in 
the  recitals  and  descriptions  of  the  charter,  and  in  the  corporate 
name,  in  reference  to  "  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York 
in  communion  of  the  Church  of  England."   A  corporate  name, 


37 


as  a  general  rule,  is  one  of  the  last,  and  least  important,  things  to 
be  looked  to  in  a  charter,  when  the  point  is  to  ascertain  who  are 
and  who  are  not  corporators.  Anybody  may  be  satisfied  of  this 
by  looking  over  the  lists  of  private  corporations  in  this  country 
and  observing  the  names.  In  the  present  instance,  if  instead  of 
"  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York,  in  com- 
munion of  the  Church  of  England,"  the  name  employed  had 
been,  "  the  Rector  and  parishioners  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity 
Church,  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York,  and  in  communion 
of  the  Church  of  England,"  this  would  have  signified  just  what 
the  Charter  intended  and  expresses,  when  its  language  is  all 
taken  together.  And  in  looking  for  the  true  construction  of 
the  Charter,  and  of  the  subsequent  Acts  in  relation  to  it,  and  of 
Queen  Anne's  Grant — the  great  endowment  of  the  church — if 
any  one,  by  way  of  facilitating  and  aiding  his  study  of  the  sub- 
ject, will  substitute,  for  the  occasion,  this  name  for  the  other,  as 
meaning — as  I  insist  it  does  clearly  mean — the  same  thing,  only 
more  accurately  expressed  to  indicate  the  corporators,  he  will 
soon  find,  I  am  sure,  that  the  difficulties  which  have  been  some- 
times thrown  around  the  case,  have  been  altogether  in  words 
and  not  in  things. 

Bearing  this  name  along  with  him,  as  a  proper  designation  of 
the  legal  person,  or  entity,  created  by  the  Charter  of  1697,  and 
as  truly  indicating  the  corporators,  and  not  calculated  to  mislead, 
like  that  bestowed  upon  the  corporation  in  the  Charter,  coming 
fii-st  to  the  colonial  Act  of  1704,  he  will  find  it  to  be  "An  act  for 
granting  sundry  privileges  and  powers"  to  the  Rector  and  parish- 
ioners of  Trinity  Church.  He  will  see  that  all  its  provisions 
were  intended  for  the  Rector  and  parishioners  of  that  parish,  and 
for  nobody  else.  Coming  next  to  Queen  Anne's  Grant  of  1705, 
he  will  find  there  also  a  munificent  bounty  (so  it  has  turned  out 
to  be)  bestowed  upon  the  Rector  and  parishioners  of  the  parish  of 
Trinity  Church,  and  upon  their  successors  forever.  He  will  re- 
member that  "  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York,  in  com- 
munion of  the  church  of  England,"  is  the  corporate  name  of  the 
body  politic  created  by  the  charter  of  1697,  and  is  a  name,  and 
nothing  else;  that  "the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New-York," 
and  "  the  inhabitants  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church,"  are  iden- 


38 


tical  in  that  Cliarter;  that  "the  inhabitants  of  the  Parish"  are 
the  parishioners,  standing  in  the  spiritual  relation  to  the  Sector 
which  I  have  described;  that  it  was  tlie  Parish,  and  the  parish- 
ioners of  that  church,  that  were  incorporated,  and  nobody  else; 
that  the  term  parishioners  must  be  taken  restrictedly,  as  mean- 
ing those  and  those  only  with  whom  the  Eector,  appointed  to 
"  have  the  care  of  souls,"  is  placed  in  a  parochial  and  spiritual 
relation,  by  significant  and  well  understood  acts.  Recollecting 
all  this,  he  will  understand,  without  one  doubt  or  difficulty,  that 
the  property  bestowed  by  the  Grant  ot  Queen  Anne  has  always 
belonged,  and  now  belongs,  to  the  Rector  and  parishioners  of  the 
Parish  of  Trinity  Church,  and  to  nobody  else.  Coming  down 
then  past  the  period  of  the  Revolution;  he  will  find  the  legis- 
lative Act  of  1784,  passed  to  secure  the  Charter,  and  property  and 
rights  of"  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church."  (so  named  in  the 
title  of  the  Act)  and  to  give  it  a  shape  and  form  adapted  to  the 
new  political  government  under  which  it  had  fallen.  He  will 
have  no  difiiculty  in  understanding  that  all  the  benefits  of  that 
Act  were  intended  for  the  Parish  and  the  parishioners  of  Trinity 
Church,  and  for  nobody  else.  No  other  parish  had  yet  been 
formed  in  that  city;  and  a]l  its  Episcopal  inhabitants  then,  as 
originally,  who  chose  to  do  so,  by  placing  themselves  in  paro- 
chial  relations  with  the  Rector,  were  parishioners  of  Trinity 
Church.  There  was  still  no  other  church  edifice  in  New- York 
but  that  of  Trinity.  In  that  church  edifice,  if  in  any  church 
edifice  in  the  city,  must  the  Episcopalians  of  New-York  have 
their  sittings,  and  receive  the  Holy  Communion.  This  Act  added 
to  the  number  of  corporators  entitled  to  the  general  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  charter — no  doubt  with  the  assent  of  the  corpo- 
ration— by  giving  such  rights  to  holders  of  pews  or  seats.  These 
rights  had,  by  the  charter,  been  limited  to  communicants  only. 
The  Act  of  1788  followed,  to  change  the  corporate  name  of  "  the 
Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,"  (so  named  again  in  the  title)  in 
order  that  it  might  stand  by  its  name,  as  "  in  the  communion  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of  New-York,"  in- 
stead of  "  the  Church  of  England." 

Now,  of  course,  in  all  this  period,  and  for  some  years  later, 
while  Trinity  Parish  remained  the  only  one  in  the  City  of  New- 


39 


York,  no  question  could  "well  arise  in  regard  to  who  were  and 
who  were  not  legally,  Corporators  and  Parishioners  of  that  Par- 
ish. All  Episcopal  inhabitants  of  the  city,  holding  the  requisite 
spiritual  relation  to  the  Rector,  were  Parishioners.  It  was,  I 
think,  in  1798,  that  the  first  independent  Parish  within  the  , city 
was  incorporated.  Between  that  period  and  1814,  eight  others 
ivere  incorporated.  Now  in  each  of  these  cases,  a  Rector  and 
Parishioners,  wholly  separate  from,  and  independent  of  Trinity 
Parish,  were  constituted.  Such  Parishioners  were  Episcopal 
inhabitants  of  New- York,  who  had  entered  into  independent 
spiritual  relations  with  an  independent  Rector,  and  had  wholly 
abandoned  such  relations  to  the  Rector  of  Trinity  Church.  No 
attempt  was  made  in  any  instance  to  maintain  that  relation  within 
the  city,  or  in  the  same  general  locality,  with  two  Rectors  at  once. 
And  in  all  the  period  during  which  these  independent  Churches 
were  being  formed,  and  existed,  down  to  the  passing  of  the  Act  of 
1814,  no  instance  occui-red  in  which  any  Parishioner  of  any  of  these 
independent  Parishes,  claimed  to  be  a  Parishioner  of  Trinity  Par- 
ish, or  the  right  to  vote  at  the  elections  of  that  Parish,  except  that 
in  1812,  pending  an  unhappy  excitement  in  a  matter  purely  per- 
sonal arising  within  tlwe  parish  of  Trinity,  two  or  three  individuals 
of  another  parish,  partizans  of  one  of  the  parties  to  the  contro- 
versy, did  offer  to  vote  at  the  Easter  election.  The  offer  was  of 
course  refused,  and  met  with  no  encouragement  or  countenance 
from  any  quarter.  It  was  regarded  almost  universally,  as  far  as 
known,  as  a  flagrant  impropriety;  and  it  led  to  the  passing  of 
the  act  of  1814,  with  the  approval,  all  but  universal,  of  the  Epis- 
copalians of  New- York,  as  well  those  who  were  not,  as  those  who 
were  parishioners,  of  Trinity  Church.  That  Act  changed,  with 
great  propriety  the  corporate  name  of  the  Parish,  to  that  of  "The 
Rector,  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,"  conforming 
in  that  respect  to  the  style  and  title  uniformly  assumed  by  Epis- 
copal Churches  in  this  State,  incorporated  since  the  Revolution; 
and  in  its  second  section,  of  which  so  much  has  been  said,  it 
made  a  provision,  at  the  special  request  of  the  corporation,  to 
meet  in  the  future  all  such  disturbing  and  disorganizing  at- 
tempts as  had  been  made  in  1812,  by  declaring,  in  substance, 
that  none  others  than  the  Parisioners  of  Trinity  Church  should 


40 


vote  at  the  elections  of  that  Parish.    It  is  indeed  surprising  and 
alarming  enough,  that  first  after  a  period  of  repose  of  thirty- 
years,  and  now  again  after  forty  years  have  gone  by,  a  serious 
attempt  should  be  made  by  those  who  have  chosen  to  separate 
themselves  from  the  corporation  and  parish  of  Trinity  Church, 
from  her  congregations,  from  her  Rector  and  ministers,  from  her 
services,  and  from  the  communion  at  her  altars,  and  to  establish 
and  maintain  separate  and  independent  Parishes  and  Rectors  of 
their  own ;  that  a  serious  attempt  should  be  made  by  such  per- 
sons to  come  into  Trinity  Church,  not  to  resume  there  any  rela- 
tions with  her  ministers  or  her  people,  not  to  worship  in  her 
temples,  not  for  any  purpose  connected  with  the  service  of 
God,  or  with  the  practice  or  maintenance  of  the  holy  religion 
of  which  she  is  an  appointed  and  faithful  witness  and  dispenser, 
not  for  any  of  these  purposes,  but  to  come  there  just  once  a  year, 
on  Easter  Tuesday,  crowding  and  hustling  at  her  sacred  chancel, 
as  men  crowd  and  hustle  and  blaspheme  at  the  political  hust- 
ings on  election  days,  with  the  spirit  of  all-uucharitableness  in 
their  hearts,  and  with  an  avowed  design  to  seize  upon  her  pro- 
perty and  possessions,  by  wresting  from  her  the  control  of  them, 
and  the  management  of  her  affairs;  and  all  this  upon  some  vague 
conceit  and  notion  entertained  by  them,  or  somebody  else  in  their 
behalf,  that  they  are  wiser  and  holier  than  others,  and  better  fitted 
to  be  the  stewards  and  dispensers  of  the  estates  and  bounties  of 
this  great  religious  and  charitable  Foundation,  than  those  to  whom 
the  trust  was  committed  by  the  donors.  Certainly  I  think,  if  Trinity 
Church  can  be  disturbed  in  the  quiet  possession  and  enjoyment 
of  her  property  and  rights  at  this  day,  on  any  of  the  pretences, 
either  of  legal  right,  or  of  superior  sagacity  and  sanctity,  which  are 
set  up  against  her,  or  on  any  of  the  grounds  of  spite  and  scandal 
with  which  she  has  been  assailed,  I  know  of  no  property  and 
no  rights,  in  the  ownership  and  possession  of  anybody  in  this 
State,  that  ought  to  be,  or  can  be,  deemed  safe  from  the  hand  of 
rapacity  and  spoliation. 

It  is  quite  clear,  that  the  Legislature  cannot  approach  this 
subject  in  any  way,  or  for  any  purpose  of  relief,  such  as  is  asked 
for,  without  entertaining,  and  adjudicating  upon  rights  of  pro- 
perty and  of  franchise  of  the  highest  value  and  importance, 


41 


brought  into  dispute  between  adverse  and  litigant  parties,  and 
upon  all  the  law  arising  in  the  case.  This  is  the  business  and 
province  of  the  Courts,  and  not  of  the  Legislature. 

The  demand  is  for  the  repeal  or  modification  of  the  Act  of 
1814.  The  main  ground  on  which  that  demand  rests,  is  that  the 
claimants  were  corporators  of  Trinity  Church  under  the  original 
Charter,  and  up  to  the  passing  of  that  Act.  On  the  other  side 
this  is  denied.  This  is  the  first  great  legal  question  to  be  de- 
cided. The  repeal  of  the  Act  of  1814,  or  disturbing  it  in  any 
way,  so  as  to  let  in  these  claimants  as  corporators  of  Trinity 
Church,  would  be  a  foul  wrong,  and  outrage,  unless  the  Legisla- 
ture shall  first  pass  solemnly  upon  this  vital  question,  and  be 
prepared  to  decide  it  judicially  in  favor  of  the  claimants.  There 
is  not  one  conceivable  pretence  on  which  the  Act  of  1814  can  be 
touched  short  of  such  an  adjudication. 

If  this  point  of  law  should  be  decided  in  favor  of  the  claim- 
ants, the  next  great  legal  question  in  order  will  be,  whether  the 
Act  of  1814  did  or  did  not  divest  them  of  their  rights  as  corpo- 
rators. But  this  question  will  require  the  consideration  and 
determination  of  others  of  great  importance  and  nicety.  It  the 
Act  was  not  passed  with  constitutional  authority — if  it  was  void — 
it  divested  no  rights;  and  on  every  principle  which,  under 
our  government,  separates  the  Legislative  and  Judicial  powers, 
the  parties  setting  up  a  claim  against  it,  or  in  spite  of  it,  must 
be  left  to  their  remedy  in  the  Courts.  It  would  be  monstrous 
for  the  Legislature  to  entertain  a  proposition  from  private  par- 
ties, to  repeal  a  law  in  which  a  question  of  private  rights  was 
involved,  on  the  suggestion  that  it  is  void  for  want  of  constitu- 
tional sanction.  The  claimants  insist  that  this  act  was  uncon- 
stitutional; if  it  was  so,  in  the  sense  in  which  they  manifestly 
use  the  word,  it  was  void;  and  if  the  Legislature  entertain  this 
claim  on  the  showing  of  the  parties  themselves,  they  must  enter- 
tain, and  in  some  manner  adjudicate  on  this  point.  The  Act  was 
either  valid  or  void.  The  Legislature  must  so  far  consider  this 
point  as  to  determine,  in  a  judicial  manner,  that  it  was  not  void, 
but  valid,  before  they  can  grant  relief  to  the  private  parties 

4 


42 


afifected  by  it,  on  the  ground  that  it  operated  to  take  away  from 
them  their  vested  rights.  And  they  must  do  this — pronounce 
the  Act  valid — while  the  very  ground  on  which  the  relief  is 
sought  for,  and  would  be  granted — that  it  violated  vested 
rights — would  be  conclusive  to  show  that  it  was  void. 

But  then  another  question  of  law,  also  of  a  very  important 
and  delicate  character,  arises  upon  this  Act,  and  nothing  could 
be  more  monstrous  than  for  the  Legislature  to  repeal  it,  in  the 
way  of  relief  to  the  claimants  in  the  case,  without  first  having 
entertained  and  judicially  determined  this  question.  The  cor- 
poration ot  Trinity  Church,  the  party  in  possession  of  the  pro- 
perty and  rights  in  this  case,  maintain  that  whatever  may  have 
been  the  rights  of  those  not  parishioners  of  Trinity  Church  be- 
fore the  Act  of  1814,  in  regard  to  the  franchise  of  voting  in  her 
elections,  that  that  Act  efifectually  and  legally  barred  them  of 
the  franchise ;  that  the  Act  was  a  contract  made  with  the  assent 
of  the  corporation,  and  with  the  assent  also  of  all  the  corpora- 
tors to  be  taken  as  an  inference  of  lawj  that  as  such  it  was  valid 
and  binding  on  the  State,  as  on  the  corporation  and  corporators; 
and  that  the  Legislature  has  no  constitutional  right  or  power  to 
violate  that  contract,  by  a  repeal  or  any  modification  of  the  Act  ^ 
without  the  consent  and  against  the  will  of  the  corporation. 
Here  are  points  of  law  which  must  be  considered,  and  judicially 
decided,  against  the  view  and  position  taken  by  the  corporation, 
before  the  Legislature  can,  without  the  grossest  injustice,  under- 
take to  grant  the  relief  demanded  by  the  claimants. 

I  cannot  suppose  that  the  Legislature,  or  either  branch  of  it, 
or  any  considerable  number  of  its  members,  will  be  found  will, 
ing  to  enter  on  any  such  service  of  judicial  investigation  and 
adjudication,  as  they  have  been  asked  to  do  in  this  case,  when 
the  subject  is  once  understood  by  them.  No  man  in  the  State 
has  any  right  worth  talking  about,  to  anything  he  possesses  or 
calls  his  own,  if  the  Legislature  may  assume  and  exercise  Judi- 
cial powers,  such  as  are  necessarily  involved  in  the  action  which 
has  been  proposed  to  it  in  this  case.  For  its  own  sake,  for  the 
sake  of  the  indispensible  order  and  division  of  public  duties, 
constitutionally  established  in  the  government  under  which 
we  live,  for  the  sake  of  all  private  rights  and  all  private  pro- 


43 


perty,  for  the  sake  of  the  sense  of  common  security,  which  would 
be  fatally  assailed  by  it,  I  earnestly  hope  and  trust  the  Legis- 
lature will  not  assume  any  such  powers. 
I  am,  dear  Sir,  with  sincere  respect  and  regard, 

your  friend  and  servant, 

D.  D.  BARNARD. 


A  WORD 


FOR 


TEimy  CHURCH 


FROM  "THE  AMERICAN  CHURCH  MONTHLY"  FOR  APRIL,  1857. 


NEW  YORK: 
EDWARD  P.  ALLEN,  9  SPRUCE  STREET. 
1857. 


A  WORD 

FOB 


[From  ''The  American  Church  Monthly"  for  April,  1857.] 

We  are  in  the  midst  of  another  ill-starred  strife  respecting 
the  ancient  and  venerable  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  New 
York.  A  good  deal  of  bitterness  and  asperity  has  been 
shown  on  both  sides.  Divers  pamphlets  arguing  the  matter 
pro  and  con  have  made  their  appearance ;  some  of  which,  as 
usually  happens  in  such  cases,  are  weak  in  spots,  and  strong  in 
spots,  only  both  their  weakness  and  their  strength  are  where 
they  ought  not  to  be ;  the  weakness  is  in  the  argument, 
the  strength  in  something  else.  All  this  is  greatly  to  be 
deplored, — deplored,  as  tainting  the  honour  of  our  common 
Christianity,  and  as  inconsistent  with  the  peace  and  good-will 
of  brethren  in  the  same  household  of  faith.  From  these 
remarks  we  ought  specially  to  except  the  Communication  of 
the  Hon.  John  A.  Dix,  which,  to  the  best  of  our  judgment,  is 
marked  by  the  candid  and  conciliatory  style  of  a  Christian 
gentleman. 

Into  this  strife  we  really  have  not  the  heart  to  enter. 
Moreover,  by  the  plan  of  our  periodical,  we  must  have  little  to 
do  with  controversy  of  any  sort ;  with  local  controversy, 
nothing.  But  the  subject  involves  some  points  of  history  and 
legislation,  that  cannot  but  be  highly  interesting  to  Church- 
men throughout  the  State,  and  more  or  less  so  to  Churchmen 
throughout  the  country.    It  also  involves  certain  questions  of 


4 


public  policy  and  public  morality,  that  are,  or  ought  to  be  of 
interest  to  all  good  citizens.  In  moving  the  subject,  we  shall 
hope  and  earnestly  endeavour  to  avoid  every  thing  like  a 
fighty  or  criminating  tone.  Nor,  as  we  view  the  matter,  is 
this  so  very  difficult.  For,  in  what  is  debated  between  the 
parties,  we  really  can  see  no  sufficient  cause  for  raising  any 
deeper  issues  than  mere  matters  of  opinion  ;  meaning,  thereby, 
things  concei'ning  which  men  may  freely  differ  witliout  imputa- 
tion either  of  bad  motives  or  incompetency.  Wc  are  resolved, 
therefore,  not  to  impeach  nor  question  any  man's  motives  in  this 
case,  nor  to  suppose  on  either  side  any  thing  worse  than  honest 
errors  of  judgment.  Of  course  we  do  not,  for  we  cannot,  expect 
that  what  we  shall  say  will  be  satisfactory  to  all  parties  :  per- 
haps we  shall  in  turn  dissatisfy  all.  The  best  we  can  hope  for  on 
this  score  is,  so  to  govern  our  speech  as  not  to  incur  any  worse 
imputation  than  just  such  honest  errors  as  fall  within  our  rule 
in  respect  of  others. 

All  which  will  come  the  easier,  no  doubt,  forasmuch  as  we 
propose,  not  so  much  to  judge  the  case  for  the  reader,  or  to 
argue  him  into  our  opinion,  as  to  lay  before  him,  with  as  much 
fairness  and  impartiality  as  we  can  bring  into  exercise,  the 
means  of  judging  for  himself.  And  if  the  reader,  after  mak- 
ing due  allowance  for  the  inlirmities  of  an  honest  manhood, 
find  us  betraying  any  consciousness  of  difficulties  which  we 
dare  not  name,  and  cannot  dispose  of ;  if  he  find  us  otherwise 
than  thoroughly  ingenuous  and  straightforward  in  argument ; 
then  our  advice  is,  that  he  do  not  "  so  sland'  r  any  moment's 
leisure  "  as  to  read  another  sentence  of  this  article. 

In  the  year  1697,  certain  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New 
York  in  communion  with  the  Church  of  England,  having  con- 
tributed sums  of  money  towards  building  a  church,  and  liav- 
ing  erected  a  building  on  the  site  where  Trinity  church  now 
stands,  petitioned  for  a  royal  charter  of  incorporation,  and  a 
royal  grant  of  "  a  certain  piece  or  parcel  of  ground  thereunto 
adjoining."  On  the  6th  of  May,  1697,  a  charter  was  accord- 
ingly issued  under  the  seal  of  the  Province  by  the  Governor 
in  Council.  That  our  readers  may  have  tiic  matter  fully 
before  them,  we  will  extract  such  portions  of  the  charter  as 
bear  upon  the  points  now  in  question  ;  giving  the  very  words 


5 


of  the  instrument,  only,  for  economy  of  space,  retrenching 
certain  verbal  superfluities.  After  reciting  the  substance  of 
the  petition,  and  describing  tlie  locality  and  boundaries  of  the 
grant,  the  charter  ordains  as  follows  : 

That  the  said  church,  erected  and  built  as  aforesaid,  and  the  ground  there- 
unto adjoinin  ;■,  inclosed  and  used  for  a  cemetery  or  churchyard,  shall  be  the 
parish  church  aud  churchyard  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church,  within  our 
said  City  of  New  York  ;  and  the  same  is  hereby  declared  to  be  forever  sepa- 
rated and  dedicated  to  the  service  of  God,  and  to  be  applied  therein  to  the 
use  and  behalf  of  the  inhabitants  frxn  time  to  time  inhabiting-,  and  to  inhabit, 
within  our  said  City,  in  communion  of  our  said  Protestant  Church  of  Eng- 
land as  now  established  by  our  laws ;  and  to  no  other  use  or  purpose  whatso- 
ever, any  statute,  law,  custom,  or  usage  to  the  contrary  notwitlistanding. 
And  that  there  shall  be  a  Rector  to  have  the  care  of  the  souls  of  said  Parish, 
and  a  perpetual  succession  ol'  Rectors  there.  And  we  do  by  these  presents 
constitute  the  Rt.  Rev.  Henry  Lord  Bishop  of  London  the  first  Rector 
thereof.  Aud  we  create  and  make  hira  the  .said  Bishop  of  London  and  his 
successors,  Rectors  of  the  said  Parish,  together  with  all  the  inhabitants  from 
time  to  time  inhabiting,  and  to  inhabit,  in  our  said  City,  and  in  communion  of 
our  aforesaid  Church  of  England,  a  body  corporate  aud  politic,  with  the  pow- 
ers aud  privileges  hereinafter  mentioned.  Aud  we  ordaiu  and  declare  that  he 
the  said  Henry  Lord  Bishop  of  London,  and  his  successors,  and  all  such  of 
our  loving  subjects  as  now  are  or  hereafter  shall  be  admitted  into  the  com- 
munion of  the  aforesaid  Church  ol  England,  shall  be  forever  hereafter  a  body 
corporate  and  politic,  in  fact  and  name,  by  the  name  of  the  Rector  and 
Inhabitants  of  our  said  City  of  New  York.  And  that  the  said  Rector  shall 
have  the  care  of  the  souls  of  the  inhabitants  within  our  said  Parish. 

And  we  further  declare  that  the  said  Rector  of  the  Pai  ish  of  Trinity 
Church  shall  and  may  forever  hereafter  have  a  common  seal,  to  use  for  all 
causes  and  affairs  whatsoever  of  them  and  their  successors  ;  and  the  same  seal  to 
alter,  break,  aud  make  new  from  time  to  lime,  as  they  shall  think  fit.  Aud  that, 
for  the  bt'tter  ordering  and  managing  of  the  affairs  and  business  of  the  said 
Corporation,  there  shall  be  once  in  every  year  forever,  on  the  Tuesday  of 
Easter-week,  two  Churchwardens  and  twenty  Vestrymen  duly  elected  by  the 
majority  of  the  votes  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  Parish  in  comnmnion  as 
aforesaid. 

And  moreover,  of  our  special  grace,  certain  knowledge,  and  mere  motion, 
we  do  grant  aud  confirm  unto  the  said  Rector  and  inhabitants  in  communion 
of  our  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  now  established  by  our  laws,  that 
the  said  church  and  cemetery  or  churchyard,  situate  within  our  said  City  of 
New  York  as  aforesaid,  shall  be  the  sole  and  only  parish  church  aud  church- 
yard of  our  said  City. 

From  these  extracts  it  is  clear  enough  that  the  charter  con- 
templated and  determined  that  the  City  of  New  York  should 
form  but  one  parish,  and  should  have  but  one  set  of  Church- 
wardens and  Vestrymen,  the  whole  to  be  under  the  spiritual 
charge  and  jurisdiction  of  one  Rector.  And  it  is  further  evi- 
dent that  none  but  those  who  were  in  communion  of  the 
Church  of  England,  tliat  is,  communicants,  and  who  were  also 


6 


inliabitauts  of  tlie  Citj',  were  to  be  corporators  of  the  parish, 
or  to  have  the  right  of  voting  for  corporate  officers. 

In  1704,  June  27th,  an  Act  was  passed  by  the  Colonial  Leg- 
islature, confirming  without  material  change  or  variation  the 
provisions  of  the  forecited  charter.  This  Act  was  repealed  in 
1784,  so  that  nothing  further  need  be  said  of  it  now. 

By  letters-patent  issued  under  the  seal  of  the  Province, 
November  20th,  1705,  a  further  grant  of  lauds  was  made  to 
the  Corporation.  This  was  called  Queen  Anne's  grant ;  and 
consisted  of  the  lands  known  as  the  Duke's  farm,  the  King's 
farm,  and  the  Queen's  garden. 

The  Colony  of  New  York  became  a  State  in  1777,  and  by  a 
general  clause  of  the  Constitution  adopted  October  14th  of 
that  year,  all  these  grants  were  secured  to  the  Corporation. 
But  the  establishment  of  American  independence  necessitated 
certain  alterations  of  the  original  charter.  This  was  done 
April  17th,  1784,  by  "  an  Act  for  making  such  alterations  in 
the  charter  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  as  to  ren- 
der it  more  conformable  to  the  Constitution  of  the  State." 
We  subjoin  so  much  of  this  act  as  is  material  to  the  purpose  in 
hand  : 

Whei'cas  by  letters-patent  unrler  tlie  great  seal  of  the  then  Colony,  and  now 
State  of  New  York,  bearing  date  the  (ith  of  May,  1G97,  many  of  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  City  of  New  York,  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  were 
erected  into  a  Corporation,  by  the  name  and  style  ol  the  Rector  and  Inhabit- 
ants of  the  City  of  New  York,  of  the  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  by 
law  established  :  And  whereas  those  parts  of  the  said  charter  which  render 
necessary  the  induction  of  a  Rector  to  tlie  said  church  by  the  Governor, 
according'  to  such  instructions  as  he  shall  receive  from  his  Brittamiic  Majesty, 
and  such  other  parts  as  acknowledi^e  that  rights  exist  in  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don in  and  over  the  said  churcli,  are  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  and  letter  of 
the  Constitution  of  this  Slate  :  And  whereas  certain  other  parts  of  the  said 
charter  are  contra  iictory  to  that  equality  of  religious  rights  which  is 
designed  to  be  established  by  the  Constitution  of  this  State  : 

I.  Re  it  therefore  enacted  by  the  people  of  the  State  of  New  York,  repre- 
sented in  Senate  and  As<<emhly,  that  so  much  of  the  charter  to  the  said  body 
corporate,  as  relates  to  the  induction  of  the  Rector  by  the  Governor,  to  the 
authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Loudon  in  and  over  the  said  Corporation,  and  to 
the  levying  a  sum  of  uioncy  upon  the  City  of  New  York  for  the  use  of  the 
Rector  or  Incumbent,  be,  and  is  hereby  repealed  ;  and  that  nothing  in  this 
law,  nor  no  non-user  or  mis-user  between  the  10th  of  Apiil,  177"),  and  the 
passing  of  this  law  shall  be  in  any  wise  construed  to  annul  or  make  void  the 
said  charter,  where  the  same  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution  of  this 
State. 

II.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  that  the  Churchwardens  and  Ycstrymcn  of 


7 


the  said  Corporation,  or  a  majority  of  them,  be  vested  with  full  powers  to  call 
and  induct  a  Rector  to  the. said  church,  so  often  as  there  shall  be  any  vacancy 
therein. 

And  whereas  doubts  have  arisen  on  those  parts  of  the  said  charter,  which 
speak  of  inhabitants  in  communion  of  the  said  Church  of  England  ;  for 
removal  whereof, 

III.  Be  it  further  enactcil,  that  all  persons  professing  themselves  members 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  who  shall  either  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or 
seat  in  the  said  church,  and  shall  regularly  pay  to  the  support  of  the  said 
church,  and  such  others  as  shall  in  the  said  church  partake  of  the  holy  Sacra- 
ment of  the  Lord's  Supper  at  least  once  in  every  j-ear,  being  inhabitants  of 
the  City  and  County  of  Xew  York,  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  rights,  privi- 
leges, benefits,  and  emoluments,  which  in  and  by  the  said  charter  are  designed 
to  be  secured  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York  in  commnnion  of 
the  Church  of  England. 

We  have  seen  that  by  the  charter  of  1G97  tlie  right  of  being 
voters  or  corporators  in  the  parish  was  limited  to  communi- 
cants. The  third  section  of  the  Act  of  1784:  extends  this 
right  to  certain  other  persons. 

Of  course,  when  this  Act  speaks  of  "  a  pew  or  seat  in  the 
said  clairch"  it  refers,  not  to  "  the  Episcopal  Church  "  in  gene- 
ral, but  to  the  particular  parish  church  mentioned  in  the  title 
of  the  Act.  The  contrary  supposition  is  simply  absurd  ;  for 
what  is  meant  by  "  the  Episcopal  Church"  clearly  has  and  can 
have  no  pew  or  seat  for  any  one  to  hold  or  occupy.  Still  it 
would  appear  that  some  have  maintained  the  two  phrases  in 
question  to  mean  the  same  tiling  :  but  this  is  quite  too  much  ; 
it  involves  such  violence  of  interpretation,  that  we  can  but 
marvel  how  any  one  should  either  believe  it  himself  or  think 
to  make  others  believe  it.  The  avowing  of  such  a  belief, 
however,  cannot  justly  be  taken  as  impeaching  a  man's  recti- 
tude ;  for  we  may  safely  affirm  that  no  one  would  ever  venture 
to  stand  responsible  for  such  a  notion,  unless  he  had  first  per- 
suaded himself  of  its  truth. 

We  will  dismiss  the  Act  of  1784  for  the  present,  by  citing 
so  much  of  the  sixth  section  as  relates  to  the  colonial  statute 
of  1704 : 

And  in  order  to  remove  all  doubts  which  may  arise  in  the  minds  of  any 
persons  with  respect  to  the  continuance,  force,  and  effect  of  an  Act  passed 
on  the  27th  ot  June,  1704,  "  for  granting  sundry  privileges  and  powers  to  the 
Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  Yorlf,  of  the  conmmnion  of  the 
Church  of  England,  as  by  law  established  :  " 

VI.  Be  it  therefore  further  enacted,  that  the  said  Act  be,  and  is  hereby 
declared  to  be,  fully  and  absolutely  repealed  and  made  void,  as  inconsistent 
with,  and  repugnant  to,  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 


8 


Under  this  statute,  the  charter  name  of  the  Corporation, 
though  still  retained,  became  obviously  unsuitable.  Accord- 
inglj^  in  answer  to  a  petition  from  the  party  concerned,  an 
Act  was  passed  March  10th,  1788,  "  enabling  the  Corporation 
of  Trinity  Church  to  assume  and  use  the  name  of  The  Rector 
and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York  in  communion  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Cliurch  in  the  State  of  New  York  ; " 
and  securing  to  them  under  the  new  name  all  the  rights  and 
powers  which  they  had  held  under  the  old.  There  was  no 
further  legislation  on  the  subject,  till  the  celebrated  ^  Act 
of  1814. 

Up  to  this  time,  and  for  some  years  after,  there  was  no  other 
Episcopal  church  or  corporation  in  the  City.  St.  George's 
chapel,  however,  had  been  built  in  1752,  and  St.  Paul's  in 
IT66,  both  of  them  being,  in  fact  and  in  name,  Chapels  of 
Ease  to  Trinity  Church.  Of  course,  therefore,  they  stood,  in 
law  and  administration,  as  parts  of  the  mother  parish,  and  as 
such  were  included  in  all  legislative  enactments  relating  to  the 
same. 

It  is  clear,  that  by  the  terras  of  the  original  charter,  and  of 
the  Act  of  1784,  none  could  be  voters  or  corporators  in  Trin- 
ity parish  but  such  as  were  actually  under  the  spiritual  charge 
and  jurisdiction  of  the  Rector  of  that  parish.  There  could 
also  be  but  one  set  of  Churchwardens  and  Vestrymen  within 
the  bounds  of  the  City.  In  short,  the  rights  of  Trinity  Cor- 
poration, over  the  area  in  question,  were  exclusive. 

It  has  always,  we  believe,  been  a  firm  principle  of  law  in 
the  State  of  New  York,  and  in  1819  was  fully  and  finally  set- 
tled as  such  for  the  whole  nation  by  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  case  of  Dartmouth 
College,  that  statutes  erecting  religious  or  charitable  corpora- 
tions are  to  all  intents  and  purposes  contracts;  and  therefore 
cannot  be  repealed  or  modified  but  by  mutual  agreement  of  the 
parties,  unless  the  right  of  repeal  be  reserved.  On  the  part 
of  such  corporations,  however,  this  agreement  may  be  either 
by  express  consent,  or  by  silent  acquiescence ;  and  a  party  is 
in  law  deemed  to  acquiesce  unless,  within  a  certain  time,  he 
bring  an  action  in  Court  to  try  the  constitutionality  of  the 
legislative  enactment.    Thus,  so  far  as  we  have  the  means  of 


9 


judging,  the  agreement  of  Trinity  Corporation  to  tlie  Act  of 
1784  was  by  acquiescence  ;  while  to  that  of  1788  it  was  by 
express  consent,  for  the  Act  was  passed  in  answer  to  their 
petition.  So,  again,  if  Dartmouth  College  had  not,  within  a 
certain  'period,  instituted  a  judicial  testing  of  the  question, 
they  would  be  deemed  to  have  acquiesced  in  the  Act  of  the 
State  Legislature  altering  the  Corporation,  and  by  virtue  of 
the  agreement  legally  implied  in  such  acquiescence  that  Act 
would  have  stood  as  law. 

From  all  which  it  clearly  follows,  that  without  the  consent 
of  Trinity  Corporation,  expressed  or  implied,  there  could  not, 
at  the  time  in  question,  lawfully  be  any  other  Episcopal  corpo- 
ration in  the  City  of  New  York.  Yet,  before  the  Act,  already 
referred  to,  of  1814.  there  were  nine  other  such  corporations  in 
the  City.  One  of  these  was  "  St.  Mark's  church  in  the  Bow- 
ery," opened  in  1799.  Another  was  Grace  church,  opened  in 
1809.  A  third  was  St.  George's  church,  which,  in  1811,  was 
by  mutual  agreement  set  off  from  Trinity  Church,  and  became 
a  distinct  parish.  These  three  parishes  were  largely  aided  and 
endowed  by  gifts  of  money  and  grants  of  land  from  Trinity 
Corporation  ;  and  they  have  continued  in  the  enjoyment  of 
those  grants  to  this  day.  Four  others,  also  more  or  less  aided 
ly  funds  and  grants  from  Trinity,  were  Christ  church,  St. 
James's,  St.  Stephen's,  and  St.  Michael's.  All  these  were  dis- 
tinct corporations,  and  their  rights  and  titles  as  such  were  fully 
recognized  by  Trinity  Corporation.  The  members  of  them 
were  nowise  under  the  spiritual  charge  or  jurisdiction  of  the 
Rector  of  Trinity  Church  ;  they  had  each  its  own  set  of  Church- 
wardens and  Yestrymcn  ;  and  therefore  the  terms  of  the  origi- 
nal charter  could  nowise  apply  to  them.  Neither  could  they 
be  reckoned  within  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  1784,  "for 
making  alterations  in  the  charter  of  Trinity  Church  for  that 
Act  secures  the  ^charter  rights  only  to  those  Episcopalians  of 
the  City,  "who  shall  either  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or 
seat  in  the  said  church,  and  shall  regularly  pay  to  tlie  support  of 
the  said  church,  and  such  others  as  shall  in  the  said  church  par- 
take of  the  Lord's  Supper,  at  least  once  in  every  year." 

Nor,  in  fact,  did  they  claim  any  right  of  voting  in  the  elec- 
tions of  Trinity  Church.    For  it  seems  to  have  been  thoroughly 


10 


understood  on  all  sides  at  that  time,  as  indeed  it  well  might  be, 
that  whenever  any  Episcopalians  of  the  City  got  themselves 
incorporated  as  a  distinct  parish,  they  thereby  lost  tlie  riglit  of 
being,  and  in  fact  ceased  to  be,  corporators  of  Trinity  parish. 
And  it  was  only  on  the  ground  of  their  being  distinct  corpora- 
tions, and  as  such  excluded  from  the  franchises  of  Trinity  Cor- 
poration, that  they  could  legally  receive  and  hold  as  their  own 
any  grants  or  endowments  from  that  Corporation.  They  can 
have  no  right  of  control  over  what  Trinity  has  retained,  but 
on  such  grounds  as  would  give  Trinity  an  equal  right  of  con- 
trol over  what  they  have  received. 

In  further  proof  of  this  point,  it  may  be  well  to  advert  to 
certain  Acts  of  the  New  York  legislature.  The  first  of  these 
is  a  general  Act,  passed  April  6th,  1784:,  "to  enable  all  the 
religious  denominations  in  this  State  to  appoint  Trustees,  who 
shall  be  a  body  corporate,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  care  of  the 
temporalities  of  their  respective  congregations."  This  Act 
makes  it  "  lawful  for  the  male  persons  of  full  age,  belonging  to 
any  church  not  already  established,  to  elect  any  number  of  dis- 
creet and  prudent  persons  of  their  cliurch,  not  less  than  three, 
or  exceeding  nine,  as  Trustees,  to  take  cliarge  of  the  estate  and 
property,  and  to  transact  all  aflairs  relative  to  the  temporal- 
ities, of  their  respective  churches."  Does  not  this  infer  tlic 
exclusivcness  of  the  corporations  in  question  ?  Is  it  not  most 
evident  that  persons  belonging  to  a  church  that  was  already 
established,  that  is,  incorporated,  could  not,  from  this  Act,  have 
any  right  to  vote  in  election  of  the  Trustees  who  were  to  be  tlie 
new  corporation  ? 

But  let  us  look  at  anotlier  Act,  passed  March  27th,  1801. 
"  to  provide  for  the  incorporation  of  religious  societies."  This 
Act  makes  it  "  lawful  for  the  male  persons  of  full  age,  of  any 
church  or  congregation  in  communion  with  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  this  State,  and  not  already  incorporated,  at 
any  time  to  meet  for  the  purpose  of  incorporating  themselves, 
and,  by  a  majority  of  voices,  to  elect  two  Churcliwardens  and 
eight  Vestrymen."  Here,  again,  it  seems  very  plain,  that  per- 
sons belonging  to  a  parish  that  is  already  incorporated  are  not 
entitled  by  this  Act  to  become  corporators  in  a  new  parish. 
Will  not,  then,  the  converse  hold,  that  if  any  persons  do  thus 


11 


incorporate  themselves  anew,  they  thereby  cease  to  be  members 
of  any  other  similar  corporation?  But  the  Act  further  limits 
the  right  of  "incorporating  tliemselves,"  and  of  voting  in  elec- 
tion of  corporate  officers,  to  those  "who  shall  have  belonged  to 
such  church  or  congregation  for  the  last  twelve  months  preceding 
such  election,  and  who  shall  have  been  baptized  in  the  Episcopal 
Church,  or  shall  have  been  received  therein  either  by  the  rite 
of  confirmation,  or  by  the  holy  communion,  or  by  purchasing 
or  hiring  a  pew  or  seat  in  said  church,  or  by  some  other  joint 
act  of  the  parties  and  of  the  Rector."  Here  nothing  seems 
plainer  than  that,  in  an  election  of  corporate  officers  in  any 
parisli,  none  can  be  voters  but  those  who  have  belonged  to  tliat 
parish  the  whole  year  befoi'e  such  election. 

In  1813,  a  third  Act  was  passed  substantially  reaffirming  the 
Act  of  1801. 

Still,  from  the  want  of  any  positive  prohibitory  clause  in  the 
forecited  Acts,  there  appear  to  have  been  some  doubts  as  to  the 
precise  and  exclusive  terras  upon  which  persons  were  entitled 
to  vote  in  parish  elections.  For  those  Acts  are  express  as  to 
who  sliall,  but  silent  as  to  who  shall  not,  be  entitled  thus  to 
vote.  To  remove  those  doubts,  if  there  were  any,  a  declaratory 
statute  was  passed  March  5th,  1819,  amending  the  Act  of  1813. 
This  statute,  after  reciting  the  main  points  of  the  Act  to  be 
amended,  and  after  reaffirming  '  t!\e  qvialifications  therein 
specified,"  expressly  provides,  "  That  no  person  not  possessing 
those  qualifications  shall  be  permitted  to  vote  at  any  subsequent 
election  of  Cliurchwardens  and  Vestrymen." 

Taking  all  these  legislative  enactments  together,  it  is  abund- 
antly certain  that  in  this  State  parish  corporations  are  meant 
to  be  exclusive  ;  that  the  members  of  a  church  already  incor- 
porated are,  as  such,  precluded  from  becoming  corporators  in 
another  church  ;  and  that,  conversely,  those  withdrawing  to  a 
church  not  already  incorporated,  and  proceeding  to  incorpo- 
rate themselves,  thereby  lose  the  right  of  being  corporators  in 
the  church  from  wliich  they  have  withdrawn.  So  that  in  this 
case  we  have  a  rule  that  works  both  ways.  And  when,  prior 
to  1814,  there  were  nine  other  Episcopal  churches  in  New  York 
besides  Trinity,  the  members  of  tiiose  other  churches  had  just 
as  much  right  to  vote  in  the  parish  elections  of  Trinity,  as  the 


12 


members  of  Trinity  liad  to  vote  in  the  parish  elections  of  those 
otliers  ;  just  as  much  right,  and  no  more.  And  for  many  years 
tliis  rule  was  practically  understood,  acquiesced  in,  and  acted 
■upon  by  all  the  parties  concerned.  And  it  was  under  and  ia 
pursuance  of  the  forecited  Act  of  April  Gth,  1784,  that  St. 
Mark's  church  and  Grace  church,  before  they  were  incorpora- 
ted, appointed  each  a  Board  of  Trustees,  who  were  to  iiold  and 
did  hold  in  trust  for  those  churches,  until  they  became  incorpo- 
rated, the  grants  made  to  them  l)y  Trinity.  And  when  the 
members  of  St.  George's  chapel  withdrew  from  their  connec- 
tion with  Trinity,  and  became  a  distinct  corporation,  it  was 
expressly  understood  as  the  condition  of  their  endowment,  that 
they  were  no  longer  to  exercise  the  rights  of  corporators  in  the 
mother  parish  ;  that  is,  they  barred  themselves  by  positive  com- 
pact from  voting  in  the  parish  elections  of  Trinity.  Of  course 
those  who  at  this  day  have  inherited  the  benefits  of  that  endow- 
ment, have  also  inherited  the  obligations  of  that  compact ;  nor 
is  it  possible,  legally  or  morally,  for  them  to  renounce  the  lat- 
ter without  also  forfeiting  the  former. 

To  the  rule  of  which  we  have  just  spoken  there  is,  however, 
one  and  only  one  exception.  This  exception  is  of  pew-owners 
or  proprietors  in  any  cliurcli.  From  the  general  rights  of  indi- 
vidual property  as  secured  by  law,  a  person  has  the  special 
right  of  voting  in  the  parish  elections  of  any  church  or  churches 
where  he  owns  a  pew.  And  this  right  holds  not  only  in  respect 
of  different  churches  in  the  City  of  New  York,  but  of  all  the 
churches  in  the  State.  For  example,  Mr.  G.  C.  Verplanck  is 
a  pew-owner  in  Trinity  church,  Fishkill,  and  in  Trinity  church, 
New  York  ;  and  as  such  he  is  invested  with  the  rights  of  a 
corporator  in  both  those  parishes.  And,  for  the  same  reason, 
if  he  owned  pews  in  St.  Mark's  and  St.  George's,  New  York, 
in  St.  Peter's,  Albany,  St.  James',  Syracuse,  and  St.  Paul's, 
Buffalo,  he  would  have  the  same  right  of  voting  in  the  parisii 
elections  of  all  those  churches.  Nor  does  it  make  any  differ- 
ence in  this  respect,  if  a  man  be  a  pew-owner  or  proprietor  in 
other  than  Episcopal  churches  :  he  may  own  pews  in  a  Presby- 
terian, a  Dutch  Reformed,  a  Baptist,  a  Methodist,  and  an  Uni- 
tarian church  ;  and,  if  so,  he  can  claim  and  exercise  the  rights 
of  a  corporator  in  them  all,  and  have  a  vote  in  their  corporate 


13 


elections.  So  that  this  exception  will  nowise  serve  in  aid  of 
anv  alleged  corporate  rights,  but  what  rest  upon  the  ground  of 
individual  proprietorship. 

We  come  now  to  the  Act  of  January  25th,  1814,  ''to  alter 
the  name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  New  York, 
and  for  other  purposes."  This  Act  was  also  passed  in  response 
to  a  memorial  from  the  Corporation.  In  their  memorial  the 
petitioners  set  forth,  that  in  the  year  1097  they  were  incorpo- 
rated by  letters-patent  under  the  great  seal  of  the  Colony,  and 
liave  ever  since  continued  to  be  a  body  corporate  by  virtue  of 
that  charter.  That,  at  the  time  of  granting  the  same,  it  was 
contemplated  that  Trinity  Church  should  be  the  sole  and  only 
Episcopal  parish  in  the  City  of  New  York,  and  that  in  fact  it 
so  continued  to  be  until  the  Revolution.  That  since  the  passing 
of  the  Act  of  April  17th,  1784,  the  pew-holders  of  Trinity 
church  and  of  the  chapels  belonging  to  the  same,  and  the  reg- 
ular communicants  therein,  have  been  the  only  persons  admit- 
ted to  vote  at  the  parish  elections  of  Trinity,  according  to  the 
just  and  fair  construction  ever  since  given  to  that  Act.  That, 
in  consequence  of  the  rapid  growth  of  the  City,  Trinity  church 
and  her  chapels  became  insufficient  to  accommodate  all  the 
Episcopal  inhabitants  ;  on  which  account  numerous  Episcopa- 
lians of  the  City  have  formed  themselves  into  distinct  corpo- 
rations, each  having  its  own  endowments  and  places  of  worship, 
with  Rectors  and  other  officers  of  their  own  choice,  totally 
independent  of  the  petitioners.  That  to  the  parishes  so  incor- 
porated ihey  have  made  liberal  donations  ;  and  that  the  mem- 
bers of  Trinity  Churcli  do  not,  as  such,  claim  any  right  to 
intermeddle  with  the  internal  concerns  of  those  parishes  ;  nor 
do  those  parishes  possess  or  claim  any  right  to  vote  in  the  elec- 
tions, or  regulate  the  affairs  of  Trinity.  That,  nevertheless,  a 
few  persons  belonging  to  such  corporations  have  lately  pre- 
tended to  claim  that  right ;  and  that  at  the  parish  election 
of  Trinity,  held  in  March,  1812,  two  or  three  such  persons 
tendered  themselves  as  voters  ;  but  their  votes  were  rejected, 
and  no  measures  have  been  taken  to  establish  the  right  so 
claimed.  That  attempts  of  this  nature  cannot  fail  to  produce 
strife  and  litigation,  and  to  foster  and  keep  alive  unreasonable 
and  mischievous  pretensions.    That,  since  the  forming  of  such 


14 


distinct  corporations,  tlie  corporate  name  of  Trinity  Church 
has  become  inapplicable,  and  ought  to  be  changed,  as  that 
parish  does  not  include  all  the  Episcopalians  of  the  City  ;  and 
tliat  it  has  become  essential  to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  that  all  doubts  respecting  the  persons  enti- 
tled to  vote  in  the  parish  elections  of  Trinity,  which  may  arise 
in  consequence  of  those  distinct  corporations,  should  be  finally 
obviated  and  settled. 

We  subjoin,  with  but  our  usual  curtailment  of  verbal  redun- 
dances, the  main  parts  of  the  Act  passed  in  answer  to  tliis  peti- 
tion. After  reciting  some  of  the  reasons  and  causes  of  the  Act 
as  set  forth  in  the  petition,  the  Legislature  enacts  as  follows  : 

I.  That  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  instead  of  their  present  name, 
shall  take  and  use  the  name  of  "  The  Rector,  Churchwardens,  and  Vestrymen 
of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  City  of  New  York." 

II.  Tiiat  ill!  male  persons  of  full  age,  who,  for  the  space  of  one  3'car  preced- 
ing any  election,  shall  have  been  members  of  the  congregation  of  Trinity 
cliurcii,  or  of  any  of  the  chapels  belonging  to  the  same,  and  forming  part  of 
the  same  religious  Corporation,  and  who  shall  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy  a  pew  or 
seat  in  Trinity  church  or  in  any  of  the  said  chapels,  or  have  partiken  of  the 
holy  comnmnion  therein  within  the  said  year,  and  no  other  persons,  shall  be 
entitled  to  vote  at  the  annual  elections  for  the  Churchwardens  and  Vestrymen 
of  the  said  Corporation. 

III.  Tliat  all  grants  and  conveyances  heretofore  made,  or  that  hereafter 
may  be  made,  by  Trinity  Cliurch  to  any  other  religious  society  now 
incorporated,  or  tliat  may  herealter  be  incorporated,  shall  be,  and  are  hereby 
declared  to  be,  valid  and  eflectual,  according  to  the  tenor  thereof. 

And  whereas  St.  George's  church,  in  the  City  of  New  York,  was  one  of  the 
chapels  heretofore  belonging  to  Trinity  Church,  and  the  pew  holders  in  the 
said  chapel,  and  others  qualified  according  to  the  charter  of  Trinity  Church 
and  the  laws  of  the  State,  were  corporators  of  the  said  Trinity  Church  :  And 
whereas,  by  mutual  agreement,  the  said  chapel,  with  such  of  the  corporators 
of  Trinity  Church  as  belonged  thereto,  or  statedly  worshipped  in' the  said 
chapel,  have  been  set  off  as  a  distinct  religious  society,  and  have  incorporated 
themselves  as  such  ;  and  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  have  granted  to 
the  said  religious  society  the  e.\clusive  right  to  the  said  chapel,  with  the 
appurtenances  ;  but  doubts  are  entertained  as  to  the  legal  validity  of  the 
transaction  ;  therefore, 

IV.  Be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  separation  of  St.  George's  chapel 
from  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  shall  be,  and  hereby  is  confirmed  ; 
and  that  the  said  church,  now  called  St.  George's  Ch\irch.  shall  not  at  any 
time  hereafter  be  held  or  taken  to  be  a  chapel  belonging  to  Trinity  Church,  so 
as  to  qualify  any  of  the  congregation  thereof  to  vote  at  the  elections  ol  Trinity 
Church  above  mentioned.  And  the  said  religious  society  shall  have  a  right 
to  all  the  temporalities  dw'ived  from  the  Corporation  of'  Trinity  Church  as 
aforesaid,  and  may  enjoy  the  .same  in  as  full  and  beneficial  manner  as  any  such 
religious  corporation  can  hold  and  enjoy  its  temporalities,  howsoever  the  same 
may  be  acquired. 

V.  That  when,  and  as  often  as  it  shall  seem  expedient  to  the  Rector,  Church- 
wardens, and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  to  divide  the  corporators  belonging 


15 


to  the  said  Corporation,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  them  so  to  do,  by  setting  apart,  as 
a  separate  church,  any  nf  the  chapels  that  may  beloDjj  to  and  form  part  of  the 
said  Corporation,  provided  the  same  be  done  with  the  assent  of  a  majority  of 
the  persons  entitled  to  vote  as  aforesaid,  who  shall  belong  to  such  chapel,  and 
who  shall  attend  a  meeting  to  consider  of  such  separation  after  at  least  ten 
days'  notice  given  for  that  purpose  in  the  said  chapel,  during  or  immediately 
after  divine  service  ;  and  such  separation  shall  take  effect  according  to  the 
terms  agreed  upon  between  the  parties  ;  and  the  members  of  the  congregation 
of  such  chapel  shall  immediately  thereafter  cease  to  be  members  of  the  Corpor- 
ation of  Trinity  Church,  and  may  proceed  to  incorporate  themselves  according 
to  law  as  a  separate  congregation  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

A  part  of  this  Act,  so  much  of  it  as  relates  to  the  qualifica- 
tions of  a  corporator,  was  merely  declaratory  in  its  nature  and 
effect.  It  was  not  meant  to  work,  nor  did  it  work,  any  sub- 
stantial change,  in  this  respect,  either  of  law  or  of  practice. 
The  tenure  of  corporators,  the  rights  of  voters  in  parish  elec- 
tions, were  continued  the  same  as  they  had  been  understood 
and  acted  upon  under  the  charter  and  the  Act  of  April  17th, 
1784.  Since  the  passing  of  that  Act,  a  very  different  set  of 
circumstances  had  arisen ;  and  there  might  be  or  was  likely  to 
be  some  doubts  as  to  the  proper  construction  and  application 
of  that  Act  in  those  new  circumstances.  To  prevent,  as  far  as 
possible,  any  evils,  any  strifes  or  disputes  that  might  grow  from 
this  cause,  was  clearly  the  purpose  of  the  Act  of  1814;  so 
much  of  it,  that  is,  as  relates  to  the  point  in  question.  All,  it 
seems  to  us,  must  agree  that  this  end  was  a  good  one  :  the 
means  used  for  attaining  it  may  not  have  been  the  best,  but  we 
suspect  it  was  at  the  time,  as  it  still  is,  easier  to  censure  the 
course  pursued  than  to  point  out  a  better.  A  few  persons,  it 
is  true,  (and  the  Legislature  were  not  left  in  ignorance  of  the 
fact,)  had  formally  claimed  the  right  of  voting  in  the  parish 
election,  and  their  votes  had  been  refused  ;  but  they  had  taken 
no  proper  measures  for  making  good  that  claim.  Of  course,  in 
any  action  for  testing  the  legality  of  such  refusal.  Trinity 
Church  could  not  be  plaintiff ;  from  the  nature  of  the  case  she 
could  only  be  defendant :  it  was  for  the  party  whose  alleged 
right  of  voting  bad  been  denied,  to  bring  a  suit  against  her  ; 
she  could  not  bring  a  suit  against  herself.  She  therefore  took, 
so  far  as  we  can  perceive,  the  only  way  of  peace  that  was  open 
to  her. 

But  the  Act  of  1814  was  passed  in  the  face  of  still  further 
information.    This  was  in  the  shape  of  a  Memorial  to  the  Leg- 


16 


islature,  dated  New  York,  March  3d,  1813,  and  bearing  the 
signatures  of  Thomas  Farmer  as  Chairman,  and  Benjamin  Fer- 
ris as  Secretary  of  a  "  committee  a])poiuted  by  a  general  meet- 
ing of  Episcopalians  at  Mechanic  Hall."  After  referring  to  the 
charter  of  1697,  tlie  Memorial  alleges,  "  That  the  congregation 
of  Trinity  Church  have  usurped  all  the  privileges  and  taken 
into  their  possession  all  the  property  of  the  Corporation ; 
thereby  disfranchising,  in  respect  to  tlie  said  charter,  a  great 
majority  of  the  Episcopal  inhabitants  of  the  City."  And  it 
closes  with  a  prayer,  that  no  law  may  be  passed  which  will 
sanction  the  unjust  proceedings  of  Trinity  Churcli,  or  affect  the 
rights  of  other  Episcopalians  of  the  City,  who  iiave  equal 
claims  to  the  benefits  of  the  charter. 

A  Bill  framed  in  pursuance  of  the  forecited  petition  of  Trin- 
ity Church  was  introduced  in  the  Senate,  March  17th,  1813, 
and  referred  to  the  committee  of  the  whole.  On  the  18th,  the 
"  memorial  of  Thomas  Farmer  and  others"  was  read,  and  refer- 
red to  the  same  committee.  On  the  20th,  Mr.  Van  Buren 
reported,  from  the  committee,  that  they  had  gone  through  the 
Bill,  added  a  proviso,  and  agreed  to  the  same.  On  the  25th,  it 
passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  21  to  9.  De  Witt  Cuxton, 
President  of  the  Senate,  was  in  the  chair  during  these  proceed- 
ings. 

On  tl;e  30th  of  March,  the  House  of  Assembly  passed  a  res- 
olution calling  upon  the  Attorney-General,  Mr.  Van  Vechten, 
for  his  official  opinion, "  whether  the  passage  of  the  Bill  would 
in  any  wise  defeat  or  vary  any  existing  vested  rights  under  tlie 
charter  granted  May  6th,  1697,  or  any  Acts  altering  the  said 
charter."  On  the  31st,  Mr.  Van  Vechten  gave  it  as  his  opin- 
ion, "  that  the  passage  of  the  Bill  would  not  defeat  or  vary  any 
existing  vested  rights  under  the  said  charter  and  Acts."  On 
the  2d  of  April,  a  motion  was  made  to  reject  the  Bill,  and  was 
lost  by  a  vote  of  66  to  23  ;  whereupon  the  Bill  passed. 

The  Bill  was  still  subject  to  the  executive  veto  in  what  was 
then  known  as  the  Council  of  Revision.  On  the  5th  of  April, 
it  was  received  by  the  Council,  and  referred  to  Chancellor 
Lansing,  who  reported  certain  objections  to  it ;  the  cliief  of 
which  was,  that  if  the  members  of  the  several  Ej)iscopal 
churches  in  the  City  of  New  York  incorporated  since  the  Act 


17 


of  April  I7tli,  1784,  liave  a  right  to  vote  at  the  annual  elec- 
tions of  Trinity  Church,  thougii  not  liaving  the  qualifications 
prescribed  by  that  Act,  the  Bill  miglit  divest  or  impair  such 
right.  Tiic  objections  remained  to  be  acted  upon  at  the  next 
meeting  of  tiie  Council.  Meanwhile,  Judge  Troup,  tlien  a  ves 
tryman  of  Trinity  Church,  was  requested  by  two  members  of 
tlie  Council  to  "  furnisli  tliem  witli  liis  reasons  in  support  of  the 
Bill."  This  was  accordingly  done  ;  and  those  reasons  were 
set  forth  at  length  in  a  pamphlet  bearing  date  New  York, 
September  6th.  1813,  and  signed  "  Robert  Ti-oup."  At  the  next 
session  of  the  Council,  held  on  the  25th  of  January,  1814.  tlie 
aforesaid  objections  were  considered,  and,  "  tlie  question  being 
put  thereon,"  there  was  a  tie  vote,  tiiree  on  each  side,  the  Chan- 
cellor voting  against  the  very  objections  which  he  had  reported 
at  the  former  session.  The  result  was,  that  the  Bill  became  a 
law  by  lapse  of  time. 

Certain  insinuations  have  lately  been  thrown  out,  to  the 
effect  that  Judge  Troup,  as  agent  for  the  Corporation,  or  act- 
ing by  their  autliority,  brought  some  impure  and  unlawful  argu- 
ments to  bear  in  support  of  the  Bill.  This  is  very  strange. 
Bishop  Hoburt  was  then  at  the  head  of  the  Corporation,  and 
among  its  members  were  Richard  Harison,  Thomas  L.  Ogden, 
Peter  A.  Jay,  and  Jacob  Sherred.  Mr.  Harison  had  so  much 
of  Washington's  confidence  as  to  be  appointed  by  him  District- 
Attorney  of  the  United  States.  From  the  same  clean  hands 
Judge  Troup  received  an  appointment  to  the  Bench  of  the  Dis- 
trict Court ;  and  he  was  deemed  pure  enough  to  share  the  con- 
fidence and  fellowship  of  Alexander  Ilamilton.  Chancellor 
Lansing  is  well  remembered  by  persons  still  living  as  a  man  of 
the  most  exact  and  scrupulous  rectitude  :  tliere  was  no  public 
man  of  the  time,  who  bore  a  higher  or  whiter  character.  We 
should  not  like  to  be  the  man  to  stand  responsible  before  the 
public  for  any  insinuations  against  the  integrity  and  honour 
of  such  men  as  these.  Whatever  may  be  the  right  of  the  mat 
ter  in  regard  to  Trinity  Church,  we  owe  it  to  ourselves  to 
respect  and  guard  the  memory  of  these  pure  and  good  men, 
these  our  fathers.  God  help  us,  if  the  characters  of  such  men, 
after  they  have  undergone  the  consecrating  touch  of  death^  are 
2 


18 


to  be  assailed  with  liints  of  corrupt  dealing  in  tlie  performance 
of  a  sacred  public  trust ! 

Nor  arc  wc  without  pretty  strong  tokens,  how  the  Act  of 
181j  was  regarded  at  the  time  by  the  Episcopalians  outside  of 
Trinity  parish.  One  of  these  is  as  follows  :  "At  a  meeting  of 
the  Rector,  Churchwardens,  and  Vestry  of  the  church  of  St. 
Mark's  in  the  Bowery,  in  the  City  of  New  York,  April  Kith, 
1812,"  the  draft  of  a  letter  to  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  church 
was  presented,  and  a  resolution  taken,  "That  the  same  be 
adopted,  and  that  the  Clerk  of  this  Vestry  prepare  and  trans- 
mit to  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  a  copy  of  the  same  under 
the  seal  of  this  Corporation."  In  this  letter,  after  expressing 
their  regret  at  learning  that  some  of  their  brethren  assert  the 
claim  of  a  general  riglit  in  all  the  Episcopalians  of  the  City  to 
vote  at  the  parish  elections  of  Trinity,  they  add  the  following  : 

Wliatever  colour  may  be  given  to  this  claim  by  any  ambiguous  words  to  be 
found  in  your  cliarter,  we  sincerely  take  pleasure  in  declaring  that  the  congre- 
gation of  St.  Mark's  church,  which  we  represent,  have  no  desire  to  assert  the 
claim  ;  and  that  we  will,  at  any  time  hereafter,  cheerfully  unite  with  your 
respectable  body  in  an  application  to  the  Legislature,  if  the  measure  shall  be 
thought  expedient,  for  an  act  to  explain  the  charter,  and  confine  the  right  of 
voting  polely  to  the  congregation  of  the  churches  under  your  immediate  gov- 
ernment :  and  wc  beg  leave  to  add,  that  we  shall  cheerfully  unite  in  such 
application,  as  well  Irom  the  earnest  wish  we  have  to  establish  peace,  as  from 
the  strong  sense  we  entertain,  that  the  measure  itself  is  dictated  by  the  natural 
fitr.css  of  things,  and  more  especially  by  the  never  to-be-forgotten  rule  ol  doing 
to  others  what  under  similar  circumstances  whe  should  like  to  be  done  to 
ourselves. 

Surely  there  can  be  no  need  of  questioning  the  rectitude  of 
any  men  who  lent  their  hands  to  a  measure  thus  sanctioned  by 
so  upright  and  disinterested  a  party  as  the  Vestry  of  St.  Mark's. 

The  Act  of  1814,  for  aught  appears  to  the  contrary,  was 
quietly  acquiesced  in  by  all  the  Episcopal  inhabitants  of  the 
City,  for  the  space  of  thirty  years  ;  whereas,  according  to  the 
ordinary  rule  of  such  cases,  only  twenty  years  were  required  to 
the  outlawing  of  any  alleged  right  put  in  abeyance  by  that  Act. 
As  we  have  already  seen,  the  Act,  being  by  mutual  agreement 
of  the  parties,  was  to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  contract  between 
the  Legislature  and  the  Corporation  :  it  was  such  both  in  law 
and  in  equity  ;  such  by  the  Constitutions  of  the  State  and  the 
United  States.  We  hear  of  no  attempt  to  interfere  with  it  till 
184(3,  when  several  petitions  were  sent  to  the  Legislature,  ask- 


19 


ing  its  repeal.  These  petitions,  all  together,  bore  the  names 
of  588  persons,  styling  themselves  '"inhabitants  of  the  City  of 
New  York,  in  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church." 
The  petitioners  were  cliiefly  members  of  not  more  than  five  or 
six  Episcopal  churches  of  the  city  ;  nor  was  there  any  instance 
of  such  a  church  applying  for  the  repeal  in  their  corporate 
capacity.  These  petitions  were  met  by  several  remonstrances, 
some  of  which  were  from  ten  other  Episcopal  churches  of  the 
City,  acting  in  their  corporate  capacity.  Besides  these,  there 
woi'e  other  remonstrances  to  the  same  effect,  signed  by  the 
male  members  of  Trinity  parish  generally,  and  by  825  male 
members  of  other  Episcopal  parishes  m  the  City.  Both  the 
petitions  and  the  remonstrances  were  referred  to  a  committee 
of  the  Senate,  a  majority  of  whom  made  a  Report  recommend- 
ing "  that  no  legislative  action  be  had  on  the  subject,  and  that 
the  prayer  of  the  petitioners  be  denied."  Except  a  minority 
Report  made  the  same  day,  there  was  no  further  action  in  the 
matter  during  that  session.  The  next  year,  those  petitions  and 
remonstrances  were  renewed,  and  referred  to  the  Judiciary 
Committee  of  the  Assembly,  who,  on  the  30th  of  March,  1847, 
made  an  elaborate  and  unanimous  Report,  closing  with  a  reso- 
lution, "  That  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners  ought  not  to  be 
granted."  The  Report  presents  a  very  clear  and  solid  argu- 
ment covering  the  whole  case.  The  following  portion  of  it, 
which  is  all  we  have  room  for,  ought  to  be  deeply  pondered 
at  this  time  : 

Viewing  this  as  a  mere  -private  controversy  between  individuals,  relating  to 
personal  privileges  claimed  by  one  set  and  denied  by  the  other,  which  the 
ordiuaij  courts  of  justice  now  are,  and  at  all  times  have  been  entirely  compe- 
tent to  determine,  the  committee  are  unable  to  perceive  why  it  should  not  be 
subject  to  the  same  general  rules  lor  promoting  peace  and  quiet,  and  terminat- 
ing litigation,  which  would  be  applicable  to  it  it  agitated  in  its  proper  tribu- 
nal ;  ai  least  they  think  such  a  principle  a  safe  guide  lor  legislation  generally, 
and  they  sec  nothing  in  this  case  to  exempt  it  h-om  the  general  rule.  There 
has  been  no  impediment  or  obstruction  to  the  regular  and  usual  jurisdiction  of 
the  courts,  and  no  reason  has  been  assigned  why  resort  has  not  been  had  to 
them  in  some  of  the  various  forms  which  would  have  aflorded  ample  redress 
for  any  wrong. 

Tue  case  does  not  present  a  mere  omission  to  exercise  an  unquestioned 
right,  but  a  submission  to,  and  acquiescence  in,  what  is  alleged  to  have  been  a 
gross  wrong.  The  doctrine  of  acquiescence  is  not  and  cannot  be  applied  to 
any  other  case  :  the  question  cannot  arise  until  some  asserted  right  has  been 
violated.  In  regard  to  corporate  rights,  the  courts  have  fixed  upon  the  term 
of  twenty  years  during  which  they  must  be  claimed  or  exercised,  or  be  deemed 


20 


waived.  This  is  the  longest  terra  whicli  by  our  laws  is  allowed  to  iiuliviiliials 
to  assert  their  ri<,''hts  in  any  case;  and  an  exclusion  of  even  a  riiilitfui  claimant 
from  the  possesiion  of  pro[)erty.  or  tlie  enjoyment  of  any  easement,  privilege,  or 
franchise,  durina:  that  term,  without  any  proceeding  on  his  part  for  redress, 
authorizes  and  demands  the  presumption  of  a  waiver  and  abandouraeut  of  the 
claim. 

In  tlie  pamphlet  by  Jud<rc  Troup,  giving  his  reasons  for  the 
Bill  in  1813,  certain  expectations  were  held  out  as  likely  to  be 
made  good  in  the  event  of  that  Bill  becoming  a  law.  Tliat  Trin- 
ity Church  would  thereby  be  enabled,  from  time  to  time,  to  set  off 
her  chapels  with  the  consent  of  tlieir  members,  let  them  form 
distinct  corporations,  and  endow  them  with  com])Ctcnt  e.'^tatcs. 
That  slic  could  also  dispense  her  wealtli  "  in  the  heavenly  work 
of  propagating  the  Gospel,"  and  in  aiding  cliurchcs  and  other 
religious  and  charital)le  institutions.  And  that  in  this  way  her 
property  might  be  kept  reduced  within  limits  congenial  to  our 
republican  systems  and  sentiments.  Whether  in  raising  such 
expectations  the  writer  acted  by  the  autiiority  of  the  corpora- 
tion, does  not  appear.  Nor  is  it  material ;  for  those  "  pledges 
of  the  Vestry,"  if  such  they  were,  have  in  fact  been  realized  to 
the  fullest  extent  that  any  reasonable  man  could  ask  ;  though 
whether  always  in  tlie  precise  way  which  we  miglit  think  the 
best,  is  another  matter.  It  appears  from  a  recent  Report,  that 
the  whole  landed  estate  of  Trinity  Church  originally  consisted 
of  2,068  lots.  Before  the  Act  of  1814,  she  had  alineatcd  299 
lots,  in  one  way  or  another,  for  the  purposes  in  question. 
Many  of  these  lots  were  granted  by  way  of  endowment  to 
particular  churches  ;  as,  28  to  St.  Mark's,  25  to  Grace,  and  33 
to  St.  George's,  all  in  the  City  of  New  York.  Since  the  Act 
of  1814,  there  have  been  grants  of  19  lots  ;  besides  which,  as 
appears  by  the  aforesaid  Report,  no  less  than  1,059  lots  have 
been  sold,  and  the  proceeds  ^ven  for  the  same  or  similar  pur- 
poses ;  thus  leaving  691  lots  still  in  her  possession.  The  299 
lots  granted  before  1814  were  probably  worth,  in  1847,  not 
far  from  $1,401,145  ;  but  at  the  time  of  granting  were  cer- 
tainly not  worth  more  than  one-fifth  of  that  sum  ;  say,  $280,229. 
Reckoning  at  the  same  rate  the  19  lots  granted  since  1814, 
their  worth  at  tlie  time  of  granting  was  $15,300  ;  while  the 
proceeds  from  the  sale  of  the  1,059  lots  have  reached  tlie  sura 
•of  $1,007,530,    So  that  we  have  the  sum  of  $1,022,830  given 


21 


since  IS U  ill  fulfilment  of  Judge  Troup's  "pledges,"  where 
only  $280.-29  had  been  given  before  that  date. 

It  is  true,  that  since  1814  she  has  no<  set  off  and  endowed 
any  of  her  chapels.  By  the  Act  of  that  year  she  was  pre- 
cluded from  doing  so  without  the  consent  of  their  congregations. 
But  slie  has  not  asked  their  consent?  Perhaps  not;  it  does 
not  appear  that  she  lias  ;  neither  does  it  appear  that  she  has 
not.  Slie  may  have  thought  that  a  proposal  of  separation  had 
better  come  from  them  than  from  her.  And  it  will  Ije  time 
enough  to  find  fault  on  this  score,  when  we  know  that  such  a 
proposal  from  them  has  been  refused  by  her. 

On  some  accounts,  it  may  indeed  be  matter  of  deep  regret 
that  the  lots  sold  since  1814  had  not  rather  been  granted  away 
in  the  sliafje  of  endowments  to  churches  and  Church  institu- 
tions ;  so  tiiat  their  great  rising  in  value,  instead,  of  enriching 
private  purses,  might  have  gone  to  enrich  the  public  cause  of 
religion  and  learning.  But  suppose  it  were  certain  that  the 
Corporation  have  not  pursued  the  wiser  course  in  this  respect ; 
this,  of  itself,  would  but  infer  an  error  of  policy  to  be  corrected, 
not  a  crime  to  be  punished.  Bat  it  is  by  no  means  certain, 
that  in  the  circumstances  any  better  course  could  have  been 
taken.  In  1814  a  large  part  of  the  most  valuable  property 
had  already  been  granted  away.  Of  the  remaining  lots,  far 
the  greater  number,  besides  being  then  of  comparatively  little 
value  in  themselves,  were  tied  up  under  very  long  leases.  To 
have  granted  endowments  out  of  such,  had  been  rather  a  pres- 
ent incumbrance  than  a  present  help  to  the  grantees ;  and  pre- 
cisely what  the  churches  aided  by  Trinity  most  wanted  was, 
present  help,  to  carry  them  through  the  perils  and  weaknesses 
of  infancy.  Perhaps,  then,  after  all,  it  was  only  by  selling  lots 
and  giving  the  cash,  that  at  the  time  Trinity  could  furnisli  the 
needed  assistance.  And,  but  for  the  timely  aid  thus  rendered, 
it  is  all  but  certain  that  many  parishes  that  are  now  thriving 
in  their  own  strength,  if  indeed  they  had  ever  started  into 
being,  would  have  long  since  ceased  to  be.  Let  us  be  fair  and 
candid  in  this  matter.  The  truth  is,  we,  whatever  right  we 
may  have  to  our  own  opinion,  are  not  the  most  competent 
judges  of  what  were  best  to  be  done  in  such  very  different  cir- 
cumstances as  those  existing  twenty,  thirty,  forty  years  ago. 


22 


"We,  circumstanced  as  we  are,  may  easily  see,  or  think  we  see, 
the  past  policy  of  ihe  Corporation  to  be  unwise  now  :  still  it 
will  not  hurt  us  to  vail  our  judgment  a  little  to  the  wisdom 
and  virtue  of  men  who  were  called  to  judge  and  to  act  tlien. 

However,  we  are  not  greatly  concerned  to  vindicate  the 
past  policy  of  the  Corporation  from  error  even  at  the  time, 
so  it  be  not  turned  into  a  ground  of  punishment  or  crimina- 
tion. And  wc  think  it  must  in  candour  be  allowed,  tliat,  liow- 
ever  wise  their  course  may  have  been  in  times  past,  tliey  have 
persisted  in  it  too  long ;  shaping  their  action,  as  was  but  natu- 
ral, rather  by  a  line  of  precedents  that  ought  to  have  been 
obsolete,  than  by  the  special  wants  and  exigencies  that  were 
rising  around  them.  Still  we  would  bear  in  mind,  that  there 
was  no  thought  of  pleasing  us  when  the  Corporation  was 
formed.  They  are  under  no  particular  obligation  to  please  us. 
They  are  the  stewards  of  an  important  public  trust.  In  the 
execution  of  that  trust,  they  are  bound  to  use  their  best  judgment. 
Is  there  any  proof  that  they  have  not  done  so  ?  Dare  any 
man  allege  any  moral  taint  in  tliem,  to  blemish  the  rectitude 
of  their  action  ? 

We  have  now  got  through  with  the  legal  and  historical  part 
of  the  question  ;  but  cannot  make  up  our  mind  to  leave  the 
subject  without  adding  a  few  considerations  of  reason  and 
policy. 

It  is  a  long-established  and  well-known  rule  of  English 
ecclesiastical  law,  that  a  man  cannot  be  a  voter  in  two  par- 
ishes at  the  same  time.  We  have  seen  that  in  this  country 
there  is  one,  and  but  one,  basis  of  exception  to  this  rule  ;  tliat 
of  pew-owners  in  two  or  more  churches.  The  rule  is  firmly 
grounded  in  the  reasons  and  conditions  of  parochial  govern- 
ment and  discipline.  Tor  it  is  clear  tliat  the  whole  frame-work 
of  spiritual  order  is  at  once  unhinged,  if  a  man,  by  being 
under  the  spiritual  charge  of  two  or  more  Rectors,  is  to  have 
the  chance  of  slipping  from  under  the  readies  of  censure  as 
often  as  occasion  urges,  or  temptation  invites.  It  may  well 
be  thought,  therefore,  that  even  our  one  basis  of  exception  to 
the  rule  is  too  much  ;  certainly  there  should  in  all  reason  be 
no  more  such  added. 

There  never  has  been,  there  could  not  be,  any  legislative 


23 


enactment  of  the  State,  carrying  with  more  stress  the  nature 
and  obligations  of  a  contract,  tlian  the  Act  of  1814.  It  was 
every  whit  as  much  a  contract  as  the  original  charter,  which 
even  all  the  violences  of  the  Revolution  were  not  enough  to 
impair.  Nevertheless,  it  may  be  broken  by  the  tempests  of 
theological  warfare.  To  speak  as  a  citizen  of  New  York,  the 
special  interest  of  Trinity  Church  touches  but  few  of  us,  very 
few  ;  but  all  good  citizens  are  deeply  interested  in  maintain- 
ing the  sacredness  of  contracts,  and  the  security  of  property, 
and  the  sweetnesses  of  good  order  and  peace,  depending  on 
that  sacredness.  Let  tlie  people  beware,  and  let  their  repre- 
sentatives beware,  lest  they  permit  tiie  special  workers  against 
old  Trinity  to  plant  a  general  rule  that  may  some  time  be 
found  to  work  against  themselves.  In  tapping  our  neighbour's 
mill-pond,  we  may  make  such  a  letting  out  of  water  as  will 
wash  away  our  own  gardens. 

The  repeal  of  tlie  Act  of  1814  will  settle  nothing  ;  it  will 
only  leave  things  just  where  they  were  before  the  passing  of 
that  Act ;  unless  such  repeal  should  be  itself  an  added  theme 
of  strife  and  litigation.  Moreover,  the  repeal  is  now  mainly 
urged  on  the  ground,  that  the  estate  was  originally  given  for 
the  equal  benefit  of  all  the  Episcopalians  from  time  to  time  in- 
habiting, and  to  inliabit.  within  the  City  of  New  York.  Large 
portions  of  that  estate  have  been  surrendered  by  the  Corpora- 
tion to  the  exclusive  use  and  control  of  certain  parishes  in  the 
City.  It  was  gravely  doubted,  as  it  well  might  be,  whether 
they  had  any  legal  right  thus  to  grant  away  for  the  benefit  of 
a  part,  what  they  had  received  in  trust  for  the  benefit  of  tlie 
whole.  To  remove  those  doubts,  and  to  legalize  those  grants, 
was  one  of  the  purposes  of  the  Act  in  question.  Nor  can  any 
of  the  parishes  or  institutions  which  have  been  endowed  by 
Trinity  make  out  any  clear  right,  either  in  law  or  equity,  to 
their  endowments,  but  what  stands  on  that  very  Act.  And,  at 
all  events,  it  is  perfectly  clear,  that  Trinitj'  could  not  convey 
to  them  a  stronger  title  than  her  own,  to  the  several  portions 
of  the  estate.  Is  it  worth  the  while,  then,  is  it  wise,  for  those 
parishes  to  acquiesce  in  a  stripping  of  Trinity  on  such  princi- 
ples as  must  issue  in  a  stripping  of  themselves  ?  Surely  both 
their  gratitude  and  their  interest  must  forbid  such  a  thing ; 


24 


nay,  tlioir  gratitude  oiio-lit  to  be  cnougli  to  forbid  it.  even  if 
tliey  bad  no  interest,  and  tlicir  interest,  even  if  they  bad  no 
gratitude.  The  bouse  of  Trinity  stands  too  near  tbeir  bouses 
to  make  it  either  safe  or  innocent  for  tbein  to  let  bers  be  fired. 

Trinity  Cliurcb,  it  is  true,  lias  by  no  means  satisfied  all 
those  who,  for  many  years,  have  been  beseecbing  and  besieging 
her  for  iielp.  If  slic  had  owned  half  the  wealth  of  tbc  City, 
slie  could  scarce  bave  answered  to  tbe  full  all  tlio  demands 
made  upon  lier.  Of  course, — we  mean  no  s[)ecial  blame  to 
tbem  :  sucli  is  liuman  nature, — of  course,  those  who  got  noth- 
ing were  offended  that  they  did  not  got  sometbing,  and  those 
who  got  sometbing  were  offeiided  tliat  they  did  not  get  more. 
Of  course,  too,  every  applicant  thought  liimself  the  best  judge 
bolb  in  liis  own  case  and  in  that  of  all  other  applicants  ;  and 
notliing  would  satisfy  him,  but  that  tlie  lesser  needs  of  all  oth- 
ers must  give  way  to  bis  greater  need.  And  it  is  just  barely 
possible,  tliat  as  some  may  iiave  turned  advocates  for  Trinity, 
because  they  bave  got  a  place  under  her  fig-tree  ;  so  also  some 
may  have  turned  advocates  against  her  because  tliey  bave  not 
got  a  place  under  her  fig-tree.    Poor  human  nature  ! 

For  some  years,  it  has  been  more  or  less  tbe  custom  of  Trin- 
ity— we  will  not  answer  for  the  wisdom  of  her  course  herein — 
to  make  real  gifts  under  the  name  of  loans.  Slie  now  holds 
mortgages,  to  a  largo  amount,  on  such  nominal  loans.  But 
these  bonds  iiave  been  taken  with  a  full  and  jterfect  under- 
standing tliat  they  were  not  to  be  enforced  ;  and  are  notori- 
ously lield  merely  in  order  to  prevent  any  diversion  of  the 
property  to  other  than  tbe  rightful  ends.  She  is  therefore 
bound  in  honour  and  good-faith  to  let  them  rest.  And,  what 
is  more,  it  is  clearly  for  iier  interest  to  let  them  rest.  But  sup- 
pose her  tenure  broken  up  as  an  usurpation,  and  the  property 
tlirown  under  tlie  control  of  all  tlie  Episcojialians  of  the  City. 
Is  it  likely  that  they  will  hold  themselves  bound  by  tlie  pledges 
of  honour  and  good-faith  made  by  an  occupant  whom  they 
have  justly  ousted  ?  Is  it  not  likely  that  tlicy  will  bave  as 
strong  an  interest  to  enforce  such  bonds,  as  Trinity  has  to 
leave  thein  unenforced  ?  They  will  soon  bave  plenty  of  use 
for  tbe  money  ;  Trinity  does  not  need  it.  Their  position  will 
then  be.  that  they  were  the  rightful  owners  of  the  property  all 


25 


the  Avliile,  and  that  Trinity  was  but  an  usurper  :  and  is  it  to 
be  supposed  that  they  will  deem  the  title  of  those  wlio  gave 
the  mortgages  to  be  any  better  than  that  of  the  mortgagee? 
Men  may  indeed  do  right  sometimes,  though  it  be  against  their 
interest ;  but  we  should  prefer  to  trust  tliose  whose  interest 
it  is  to  do  right,  and  who  cannot  but  know  that  such  is  the 
case. 

This  mode  of  nominal  loans  and  nominal  mortgages,  is,  we 
grant,  liable  to  some  serious  objections.  It  is  ajjt  to  create  a 
somewhat  delicate  and  perhaps  cmbarraysing  relation  between 
the  giver  and  the  receiver.  But  we  can  by  no  means  admit 
that  it  tends,  as  a  general  thing,  to  break  down  or  impair  the 
independence  of  the  parties  benefited.  Individual  exceptions 
of  course  there  will  be  ;  everywhere  are  to  be  found  some  men 
who  will  crouch,  and  fawn,  and  become  sequels  to  another,  for 
favours  had  or  wanted.  But,  assuredly,  he  knows  little  of 
Anglo-Saxon  manhood,  especially  under  its  heightened  and 
intensified  American  form,  who  supposes  that  its  character  is, 
or  can  be  made  to  be,  less  manly  and  independent  in  action  or 
thought,  under  relations  and  for  causes  of  this  nature.  We  are 
sensitively  tenacious  of  our  independence,  and  sensitively  jeal- 
ous of  all  influences  that  can  be  imagined  in  any  way  to  relax 
its  sinews  or  undermine  its  basis.  To  avoid  the  appearance  or 
imputation  of  softness  or  pliancy  in  this  the  backbone  of  our 
character,  we  rather  go  to  the  opposite  extreme ;  and  in  nine 
cases  out  of  ten,  he  who  thinks  to  curry  or  bribe  us  out  of  our 
independence  by  considerations  of  money  will  but  find  us  all 
the  more  stout  in  s'l'asping  it,  and  all  the  more  bold  in  mani- 
festing it.  And,  in  the  present  case,  we  may  safely  affirm  that 
where  one  has  bowed  or  succumbed  beneath  the  influence  of 
benefits  received  or  expected,  nine  have  stood  the  more  erect 
and  stifi"  for  that  very  cause ;  and  some,  no  doubt,  have  even 
leaned  the  other  way,  lest  they  should  seem  to  be  influenced 
after  an  ignoble  and  unmanly  sort.  So  that  the  objections  in 
question  hold  much  rather  to  the  disadvantage  of  Trinity  and 
of  any  intei-est  specially  espoused  by  her,  than  otherwise.  This 
is  clearly  true  in  argument  of  reason,  and  it  is  found  to  be  true 
in  point  of  fad,  so  far  as  the  motives  of  the  beneficiaries  of 
Trinity  have  transpired  in  their  public  action.    We,  for  one, 


26 


arc  glad  it  is  so,  and  we  trust  that  so  it  will  ever  be  ;  for  High 
Church  and  Low  Church  are  to  us  small  matters  in  comparison 
of  Christian  manhood.  That  tliey  have  been  and  are  so  like- 
wise to  the  Corporation  of  Trinitj',  will  scarce  be  questioned 
by  any  one  who  thinks  as  he  ought  to  think  of  such  men  as  the 
late  David  B.  Ogden  and  Chancellor  Jones,  and  of  such  men 
as  the  living  Mr.  G.  C.  Verplanck,  Mr.  John  A.  Dix,  and  Mr. 
Abel  T.  Anderson. 

As  for  the  clamour  that  has  been  raised  about  the  building 
of  Trinity  chapel,  we  really  must  confess  that  it  appears  to  us 
something  rather  worse  than  unreasonable.  Let  us  look  at  the 
facts.  It  is  well  known  that  most  of  the  old  parishioners  of 
Trinity  had  removed  to  a  long  distance  from  any  of  her  exist- 
ing church  accommodation.  Trinity  church  and  the  two  cliapels 
of  St.  Paul's  and  St.  John's  were  in  a  part  of  the  City  from 
which  nearly  all  other  labourers  liad  witlidrawn,  and  where 
there  was  a  growing  need  of  free  churches  and  missionary  work, 
unless  the  whole  region  were  to  be  abandoned.  Tiic  new 
chapel  was  built,  either  because  the  old  places  of  worship  had 
been,  or  in  order  that  they  might  be,  turned  into  free  churches 
and  missionary  establishments  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  had 
been,  or  were  likely  to  be,  left  unprovided  for  by  others.  It 
was  certainly  natural  for  the  old  parishioners  of  Trinity  to 
wish  that  their  mother  parish  should  go  with  them,  or  follow 
them  with  her  ancient  and  hallowed  ties.  She  had  been  the 
spiritual  home  of  their  fathers.  She  was  the  parish  in  whose 
venerable  bosom  they  had  been  baptized  and  confirmed  ;  where 
their  funereal  tears  had  gushed,  and  where  the  marriage  bene- 
diction had  been  spoken  over  them.  It  is  through  these  tender 
and  precious  memories  that  our  holy  and  beautiful  religion 
sheds  her  selectest  influences  upon  us  :  much  of  her  best  power 
over  us  is  entwined  in  one  growth  with  these  sanctities  and 
sweetnesses  of  old  affection. 

But  the  parishioners  of  Trinity  were  rich,  and  well  able  to 
take  care  of  themselves?  Be  it  so.  The  rule,  if  a  good  one, 
will  doubtless  work  both  ways.  Grace  church  and  St. 
George's,  besides  that  their  members  were  of  the  wealthy  class, 
much  more  so  indeed  than  those  of  Trinity,  had  a  large  amount 
of  corporate  wealth  originally  derived  from  the  Trinity  estate. 


27 


They  also  had  removed  away  from  their  old  cluirchcs.  They 
also  clung  to  the  sacred  associations  of  their  spiritual  father- 
land. What,  then,  did  they  do  ?  Did  they  retain  their  old 
places  of  worship,  and  carry  them  on  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor  ? 
Did  they  devote  any  portion  of  their  corporate  wcaltli  to  free 
cliurches  and  missionary  labour  in  the  region  they  had  left  ? 
No  such  thing.  They  alienated  tlieir  down-town  churches,  and 
used  their  corporate  wealth  in  erecting  their  noble  and  magnif- 
icent up-town  structures.  We  are  far  from  blaming  them  for 
doing  so.  They  had  not  corporate  wealth  enougli  to  keep  up 
the  old  churches  for  others,  and  to  build  new  ones  for  them- 
selves. Trinity  had  enough  to  "  provide  for  her  own  house- 
hold" up-town,  and  also  to  retain  her  down-town  churches  as  a 
provision  for  those  whom  others  had  left  in  her  care.  And 
there  now  stands  old  Trinity  with  her  two  daughters,  and  long 
may  she  stand,  the  noblest  ecclesiastical  structure  in  the  land, 
for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  poor.  God  bless  our  poor  breth- 
ren! she  is  not  a  whit  too  good  for  them.  If  architectural 
beauty  can  do  any  thing  to  win  them  to  the  beauty  of  holiness, 
and  to  the  consolations  of  holy  hope,  in  Heaven's  name,  let  it 
be  done !  But  the  rich  have  souls  to  be  saved  as  well  as  the 
poor  ;  and  we  see  no  reason  why  the  Church  should  depart 
from  the  rule  of  making  herself  all  things  to  all  men  in  respect 
of  them  any  more  than  of  others.  Even  granting  their  habits 
of  elegance  and  splendour  to  be  but  infirmities,  still  tliose  habits 
may  lawfully  be  complied  with,  for  the  sake  of  doing  tliem 
good.  Nor  can  we  allege  any  sufficient  cause  why  tlie  temples 
of  God  should  let  themselves  be  outshone  by  the  temples  of 
Mammon  and  the  palaces  of  domestic  comfort  and  splendour. 
We  therefore  heartily  approve  the  expending  of  $300,000,  or 
more,  if  more  there  were,  in  the  superb  structure  of  St.  George's 
church.  And  for  the  same  reason  we  approve  with  equal 
heartiness  the  expending  of  $230,000  in  Trinity  chapel.  This, 
too,  is  a  superb  structure  :  as  prices  then  were,  it  is  well  worth 
the  money  ;  and  we  would  not  have  had  it  cost  a  cent  less. 
And  as  for  those  who  are  now  clamouring  against  tlie  cost  of 
the  chapel,  we  will  do  them  the  credit  to  believe,  that  if  Trin- 
ity had  stinted  herself  to  $50,000  in  a  church  up-town,  they 
would  have  been  among  the  first  to  cry,  Shame  upon  her ! 
We  have  no  reason  or  right  to  expect  that  Trinity  Church 


28 


will  give  much  liced  to  any  opinion  of  ours.  We  owe  her  no 
subscriptions,  and  slie  owes  us  r.onc.  Ancl  avc  have  no  such 
reaches  nor  any  such  reputation  of  sagacity,  as  would  war- 
rant licr  in  regarding  what  we  may  tiiink  or  say.  Never- 
theless, we  will  hazard  an  opinion.  Slie  is  now  labouring 
under  a  chronic  disease  of  giving,  and  has  superinduced  upon 
others  a  chronic  disease  of  expecting.  This  disease  cannot  be 
healed  all  at  once,  nor  can  its  issues  be  stopped  all  at  once  with- 
out imniiment  danger  to  the  patients.  She  has  lately  been  left 
in  the  almost  undivided  occu]inncy  of  a  very  large  and  impor- 
tant held.  Our  opinion,  then,  is,  that  she  will  do  most  both  for 
herself  and  for  tiie  cause  at  large,  by  graduall}'  retrenching  her 
donations  abroad,  and  spending  much  the  larger  portion  of  her 
means  in  her  own  immediate  spiiere.  Let  her  endeavour  with  all 
her  might  to  do  the  very  best  tliat  can  be  done  in  tiie  way  of 
parochial  organization  and  parochial  operation,  in  all  its  parts 
and  members.  Let  her  strive  to  present  a  living  and  life-giving 
model  of  parochial  schools,  charities,  whatsoever  may  be  legit- 
imately brought  within  the  care  and  compass  of  a  parisii  that 
means  to  be  and  ouglit  to  be  the  cynosure  of  neighbouring 
eyes."  Let  her  also,  in  all  her  appointments,  be  careful  to  select 
her  men  because  the  place  wants  them,  not  because  they  want  the 
place.  Last,  not  least,  let  her,  in  the  true  spirit  of  our  institu- 
tions, trust  freely  in  the  honesty  and  practical  good  sense  of 
the  People,  in  the  full  assurance  that  with  them  no  dodges,  no 
trickery,  no  shams,  no  sophistry',  no  playing  of  fast-and-loose 
can  permanently  go.  With  us,  thank  Heaven  !  the  People,  the 
People  are  sovereign.  We  believe  that  in  tlic  long  run  they 
will  prove  the  wisest,  noblest,  bravest,  most  evcnhanded,  and 
most  generous  Sovereign  that  has  ever  reigned  in  our  world. 
Perfect  honesty,  perfect  fairness,  perfect  candour,  these  are 
what  they  like,  what  they  know  how  to  distinguish,  and  what 
they  will  stand  by  to  the  last.  It  is  to  their  practical  discern- 
ment and  love  of  these  qualities  that  Trinity  must  now  look 
for  defence  against  the  arts  of  her  assailants.  Give  that 
love  and  disceimment  proper  time  to  work,  and  she  Avill  need 
no  other  defence.  The  People  will  not  suffer  any  one  to  be 
wronged,  who  trusts  in  them  ;  nor  will  they  long  be  deceived 
by  any  one  who  undertakes  to  practise  upon  them,  or  to  work 
and  wind  them  into  the  doing  of  wrong. 


A  REVIEW 


Of  the  Eeports,  Evidence  and  Arguments,  as  Presented 
in  the  Case  of  Trinity  Church, 

TO  THE  LEGISLATUEB  OF  NEW-YORK,  1857. 


When  error  once  gets  the  start,  as  it  too  often  does  in  this 
evil  world,  truth  finds  it  hard  to  win  the  race.  The  passions, 
the  prejudices,  the  interests  of  men,  are  like  so  many  wires 
spread  over  the  land,  vibrating  to  the  electric  touch  of  falsehood- 
These  telegraphs,  swifter  than  Morse's,  are  the  willing  abet- 
tors of  designing  men,  and  carry  their  messages  in  every  direc- 
tion. On  the  other  hand,  Truth,  old-fashioned  creature  that  she 
is,  delighting  not  in  modern  inventions^  keeps  to  the  old  mail- 
coach,  "her  swift-sure  line,"  and  makes  slow  progress  through 
the  mud  and  mire,  or  on  the  hard  road  she  has  to  tra- 
vel ^'after  error.  But  the  race  ; is  not  always  to  the  swift! 
So  even  old  Trinity,  "  in  her  four-wheeled  chariot,"  as  a  face- 
tious divine  lately  pictured  her,  may  hope  to  overtake  the 
nimble-footed  rumors,  falsehoods,  and  misrepresentations  which 
designing  men  have  made  current,  though  swifter  in  their  course 
than  Atalanta  of  old.  She  would  be  sure  to  outstrip  them  if 
she  would  only  adopt  the  expedient  of  Hippomenes,  and  throw 
down  her  golden  apples  to  stay  their  course. 

It  is  strange  how  often  the  fables  of  ancient  mythology  find 
antitypes  in  the  realities  of  modern  history.  We  find  a  coun- 
terfeit presentment,  a  summary  account  of  the  whole  course 
of  proceedings  against  Trinity  Church,  in  a  fabulous  story  1263 

1 


2 


years  B.  (I.  It  is  the  story  of  the  Argonauts  after  the  Golden 
Fleece.  All  these  expeditions  have  had  but  one  object — to 
jleece  old  Trinity.  The  ghosts  of  the  old  Argonauts  have  risen 
up  in  the  numerous  progeny  of  Aneke  Janfz  and  others  ;  and 
when  these  have  been  laid  by  the  voice  of  the  Law,  they  have 
started  up  afresh  in  the  more  proper  shapes  of  claimants 
for  ghostly  rights  long  defunct,  advocates  who  appear  as 
*'  spiritual  mediums,"  to  diffuse  more  widely  the  solid  advan- 
tages of  the  golden  fleece,  now  guarded  by  the  Dragon 
Corporation  of  Trinity.  But  these  Argonauts  have  been  ship- 
wrecked in  their  vain  attempt  to  pass  the  Scyllaand  Charybdis 
of  the  Senate  and  Assembly,  or  crushed  between  these  Sym- 
plegades. 

If  we  were  be  lievers[  in  the  doctrine  of  Pythagoras,  we 
might  think  that  the  soul  of  Jason  had  at  length  passed  into 
the  body  of  the  Chairman  of  a  Committee  of  the  New- York  Sen- 
ate, and  that  under  his  guidance  the  new  ship  Argo,  built  in  the 
docks  of  New-York,  would  soon  return  from  Albany  freighted 
with  the  golden  prize  !  The  potent  aid  of  the  party,  which 
seems  most  interested  in  wool,  is  hoped  for  in  stripping  from 
Trinity  her  golden  fleece.  If  they  can  only  lull  to  sleep  that 
•watchful  dragon,  the  public,  the  flaying  process  will  soon  be 
accomplished.  But  all  their  incantations,  though  more  subtle 
than  those  of  Medea,  cannot  overcome  the  power  of  Truth. 
Let,  then,,  her  voice  be  heard. 

But  has  not  this  voice  been  heard  ?  Have  there  not  been 
reports  of  a  Senatorial  Committee,  testimony  of  trust-worthy 
men,  and  arguments  of  learned  counsel  ?  Yes- — there  have 
been  all  these,  and  more.  Perhaps  loo  much,  rather  than  too 
little.  Truth,  like  the  Eoman  maiden,  beneath  the  Sabine 
shields,  may  be  crushed  under  the  multitude  of  pretended  de- 
fences. Our  design  is  not  to  increase  the  superincumbent 
mass,  but  to  strip  off  the  useless  bucklers,  under  whose  weight 
she  is  now  hidden,  and  crushed  to  the  earth.  That  is  the  end 
and  object  of  this  Review. 

The  authority  for  every  word  here  uttered  shall  be  estab- 
lished by  the  documents  printed  and  published  under  the  di- 
rection and  sanction  of  the  Senate.    Out  of  these,  in  which 


3 


there  is  no  small  admixture  of  chaff,  let  us  try  to  sift  the 
grains  of  Truth. 

A  brief  glance  at  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  proceedings 
in  the  present  case  will  further  our  object.  It  is  usual — >\ve 
might  almost  say  a  law  established  by  universal  precedent — ■ 
where  Legislative  bodies  are  called  upon  to  act  in  disturbance 
of  existing  interests,  which  have  long  enjoyed  the  quiet  protection 
of  law.  that  the  case  should  be  presented  in  the  shape  of  a  mem- 
orial, bearing  known  and  responsible  signatures.  This  seems  a 
needful  'safeguard  against  improper  legislation.  Thus  only  can 
a  Senate  be  preserved  from  imposition,  and  the  rights  of  others 
be  protected  from  the  expense  and  vexation  of  needless  disturb- 
ance. The  present  proceedings  against  Trinity  Church  had 
not  this  fair,  honest,  and  righteous  beginning.  They  began  on 
the  motion  of  a  single  senator.  Whether  he  was  impelled  by 
his  own  interests  and  prejudices,  or  some  other  hand  held  the 
concealed  wire  which  gave  him  impulse,  was  not  known  to  the 
Senate,  or  those  most  interested.  For  all  the  Senate,  or  the 
public  knew,  he  might  have  been  the  representative  of  some  hos- 
tile sect,  of  Brigham  Young,  or  Fanny  Lee  Townsend  !  It  was 
not  until  after  the  Report  of  the  Committee  in  January  last, 
that  the  Senate,  or  the  friends  of  Trinity,  learned  anything  of 
the  real  mover.s  in  this  matter.  Then  it  was  that  they  gathered 
from  the  witnesses — -for  in  this  strange  judicial  proceeding  of 
a  legislative  body,  there  is  no  distinction  between  witnesses  and 
accusers,  judges  and  jury — that  the  real  movers  in  the  present 
proceedings,  were  those  who  had  been  foiled  in  similar  efforts 
before  the  Senate  in  1846,  and  unanimously  rejected  by  the  As- 
sembly in  1847  !  It  was  wise  to  keep  these  parties  in  the  back 
ground.  More  recent  discoveries  have  shown,  that  among  the 
most  active  movers  in  this  matter,  are  those  not  of  the  Episco- 
pal Church;  one  of  whom,  their  Goliath  of  Galh,  though  not 
quite  so  invincible,  nor  battling  openly  as  this  manly  champion, 
owns  that  he  has  been  engaged  for  two  years  past  in  this  work. 
The  sling  and  stones  of  simple  truth  may  be  too  mighty  even 
for  the  chain  armor  of  party  politics  ! 

The  first  resolutions  were  passed  in  the  hurry  and  crowded 
business  of  the  close  of  the  session  of  1855.    [a  their  intention 


4 


and  in  the  points  they  touch,  as  well  as  in  those  they  omit,  and  in 
their  limitations  of  time  and  space  so  as  to  exclude  some  of  the 
noblest  deeds  and  gifts  of  Trinity,  they  show  a  designing  and 
a  skilful  hand.  These  resolutions  were  answered  by  the  Vestry, 
fully  and  fairly  ;  whereupon,  again  without  any  memorial  from 
any  body,  the  hidden  impulse  again  acted,  and  just  in  the  nick 
of  time,  and  just  in  the  most  effective  way.  A  few  minutes 
before  the  close  of  the  Session  of  1656,  the  Report  of  the 
Church  was  referred  to  a  Committee  clothed  with  vague  and 
plenary  powers  to  act  as  they  like.  One  long  connected  with 
the  New-York  Argonauts  is  made  chairman,  and  so  the  ship 
Argo,  commanded  by  the  Honorable  Mark  Spencer,  once  more 
puts  to  sea  with  a  roving  commission.  Well  may  Trinity 
tremble  for  her  golden  fleece !  After  cruising  around  for 
some  months  in  search  of  witnesses  and  other  sources  of  infor- 
mation, they  dropped  anchor  in  New- York  harbor,  in  the 
month  of  December. 

Here  they  remained  and  examined  witnesses  of  iheir  own 
selection  for  parts  of  five  days.  Of  these  witnesses  and  their 
evidence,  we  shall  speak  hereafter.  Some  think  that  the  guar- 
dia"ns  of  the  golden  fleece  were  indulging  in  a  short  nap  at 
this  time,  lulled  into  repose  by  their  confidence  in  the  hono- 
rable material  of  which  this  Committee  was  composed.  On 
the  whole  it  was,  we  are  inclined  to  think,  better  that  the 
Vestry  let  the  Committee  alone  at  this  time.  Their  choice  of 
the  witnesses  summoned  by  them  ;  their  selection  of  the  ques- 
tions asked  ;  the  judicious  brevity  of  some  examinations  ;  the 
prolix  disquisitions  drawn  out  from  others  who  were  made  to 
swear  not  only  to  their  own  opinions,  but  even  to  iheir  own  in- 
terpretations of  law  (which  we  deem  rather  hard  swearing, 
especially  on  a  Church  question),  make  as  plain  as  daylight 
the  animus  and  intention  exciting  and  governing  this  investi- 
gation.   Its  end  was  not  truth,  but  the  fleece  ! 

The  Committee  having,  in  this  judicious  manner,  obtained 
just  the  facts  they  wanted,  on  the  testimony  of  chosen  wit- 
nesses— a  soft  compound  of  opinions  and  judgments,  and  hear- 
say evidence,  which  they  sought  to  harden  into  solidity  by  the 
compression  of  oaths — evidence  which  any  court  of  law  would 


5 


have  driven  from  the  judgment-seat — give  to  the  Senate  the 
result  of  their  expedition,  in  what  they  call  a  Report;  but 
which  is  in  fact  a  mere  ex  parte  argument  for  which  they  well 
deserved  a  fee  from  their  clients,  the  opposers  of  Trinity  !  As 
this  Report  of  the  Argonautic  expedition  has  been  completely 
thrown  into  the  shade  by  a  second  more  brilliant  effort,  still 
more  deserving  of  a  fee  on  the  part  of  their  clients,  we  shall  let 
it  lest  in  its  merited  obscurity  ! 

One  good  effect,  at  least,  it  had.  It  thoroughly  aroused  the 
Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  to  a  sense  of  the  extent  and 
spirit  of  the  hostile  forces  arrayed  against  them.  Men  of 
high  honor,  who  have  never  thought  of  advancing  a  selfish  in- 
terest by  the  power  entrusted  to  them,  who  have  ever  sought 
honestly  and  truly  to  discharge  their  duty  to  the  Church,  they 
were  slow  to  believe  that  such  a  confederacy  could  be  arrayed 
in  this  free  land,  and  under  this  just  government,  to  despoil 
the  trust  of  which  they  were  the  guardians.  Men  who  acted 
always  in  the  light  of  day,  they  were  no  matches  for  those 
who,  without  fear,  but  not  all  without  reproach,  were  working 
against  them  in  the  dark.  In  the  voice  of  this  Report  comes 
to  them  the  assurance — "They  have  taken  crafty  counsel 
against  thy  people,  and  consulted  against  thy  hidden  ones  : 
they  have  said.  Come,  and  let  us  cut  them  off  from  being  a  na- 
tion, that  the  name  of  Israel  may  be  no  more  in  remembrance. 
For  they  have  consulted  together  with  one  consent — they  are 
confederate  against  thee.  The  tabernacles  of  Edom  and  the 
Ishmaelites  ;  of  Moab  and  the  Hagarenes  ;  Gebal,  and  Ammon, 
and  Amalek ;  the  Philistines  with  the  inhabitants  of  Tyre  ; 
Assur  also  is  joined  with  them ;  they  have  holpen  the  children 
of  Lot." 

Astonished  at  the  character  of  the  testimony  and  report,  as 
well  they  might  be,  which  had  thus  been  brought  against  her, 
the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  now  demand  that  her  witnesses 
shall  be  heard — witnesses  who  shall  swear  to/ac/A-not  to  opinions  ; 
witnesses  who  shall  testify  what  they  do  know  and  what  they 
have  seen  ;  who  shall  not  kiss  the  Word  of  everlasting  truth  to 
give  weight  to  their  speculations  about  the  worth  of  property, 
in  order  to  place  a  body  of  the  most  honorable  men  in  the 


6 


community  beside  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  in  keeping  back  part 
of  the  price  of  their  land!  With  presumption,  we  must  use 
the  true  word,  which  the  dignity  of  a  Senator,  not  of  Venice 
but  of  free  America,  will  not  excuse,  this  Committee  imply 
that  it  was  a  gracious  act  of  condescension  on  their  part  to 
hear  this  side  of  the  evidence^  a  wonderful  exhibition  of  patience 
that  they,*  for  several  days,  "quietly  listened  also  to  the  very 
long  arguments  of  the  counsel  from  whom  the  objection  pro- 
ceeded." Are  they  not  the  movers  in  this  affair  ;  the  disturbers 
of  their  own  peace  and  quiet  ?  And  they  even  venture  to 
charge  the  Corporation  with  regretting  "  that  so  little  had  been 
made  of  the  opportunity  afforded  them  in  the  City  of  New- 
York,  when  the  Committee  made  a  written  communication  to  the 
Vestry  before  they  commenced  talcing  testimony.'"  The  Vestry 
replied  to  this  in  a  "  written  communication."  More  than  this 
they  could  not  do  with  propriety,  as  all  the  other  witnesses 
were  called  by  a  regular  summons.  More  than  this,  we  sup- 
pose, they  never  would  have  done,  had  it  not  been  for  the  out- 
rageous ex  parte  character  of  the  testimony  and  report. 

Well,  this  condescending  and  most  patient  Committee  hear 
this  evidence  of  faithful  and  true  men — Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Laymen,  of  honorable  renown  in  the  Church  of  God.  Nay, 
we  are  wrong  in  saying  they  all  hear  it !  Notwithstanding 
their  professions  of  Job-like  patience,  in  listening  to  the  side 
they  did  not  want  to  bear,  there  is  the  usual  variance  here  be- 
tween the  fact  and  the  assertions  of  their  Report.  The  Hon. 
A.  J.  i  arker,  the  learned  and  able  Counsel  of  Trinity  Church, 
thus  speaks  to  the  Committee  (Arguments,  p.  38)  :  "  I  regard 
it  as  a  great  misfortune  to  us,  in  this  case,  that  some  of  our 
testimony  was  taken  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Ramsey,  and  the 
greater  part  of  it  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Noxon."  These 
gentlemen,  however,  may  feel  happy  in  being  thus  relieved 
from  part  of  the  responsibility  of  this  partizan  Report.  Well, 
we  may  suppose  the  Chairman,  who  heard  it  all,  and  perhaps 
some  friend  slightly  interested  in  this  case,  holding  solemn 
council  over  the  matter.    We  can  imagine  the  learned  Chair- 


*  Report,  p  3. 


7 


man  seeming,  as  Judge  Parker  said  those  ought  to  he  who 
assume  the  judicial  character,  "  like  a  piece  of  hlank  paper" — 
when  he  beholds  all  this  testimony  of  his  chosen  witnesses,  and 
his  beloved  Report  demolished  by  the  collision  of  the  new 
evidence  !  What  shall  be  done  ?  His  Report,  the  locomo- 
tive, and  the  long  train  of  evidence,  are  all  a  hopeless  wreck, 
and  the  passengers,  the  witnesses,  are  so  maimed  and  injured, 
that  they  can  do  him  no  more  service!  Fortunately  there  is 
at  hand  a  veteran  engineer  who  has  driven,  for  many  years, 
locomotives  on  the  State  roads,  who  has  had  many  a  collision, 
in  which  locomotive,  cars,  and  passengers,  have  been  smashed 
up,  and  who  has  always  managed  to  take  care  of  number  one, 
and  escape  unhurt,  and  who,  although  he  ran  the  train  off  the 
track  on  the  last  line,  has  lately  been  made  first  engineer  on 
a  new  road,  parts  of  which  are  very  dangerous.  The  veteran 
answers  the  despairing  gaze  of  the  Senatorial  engineer  with 
a  look  of  calm  assurance.  To  the  question,  "  What  shall  be 
done  ?"  He  answers,  "  Clear  first  all  this  rubbish  off  the  track, 
and  fire  up  another  engine."  "But  we've  got  to  drag  that 
fresh  train  of  evidence  after  us,  and  I'm  afraid  if  I  put  head 
enough  of  steam  on,  it  will  blow  us  up  !"  "  Oh,  never  fear,  '  go 
ahead,'  and  I'll  uncouple  the  cars  which  give  us  any  trouble, 
and  leave  them  behind !"  "  Bat  then  the  company  will  miss 
the  cars,  and  I  will  be  called  to  account."  "  Never  fear,  they 
are  so  much  crowded  with  business  just  now  that  they  will 
only  look  at  the  locomotive,  and  never  mind  the  cars." 

That  some  such  plan  as  this  was  hit  upon  by  the  Chairman 
and  his  advisers,  a  further  examination  will  make  evident. 
The  last  Report  quietly  drops  all  the  evidence  likely  to  give 
any  trouble,  or  which  is  irreconcilable  with  the  former  Report 
and  testimony.  When  troublesome,  evidence  must  be  referred 
to,  it  shapes  and  moulds  this  to  fit,  sometimes  even  by  the 
alteration  of  language!  It  passes  quietly  by  all  the  difficulties 
which  would  interfere  with  the  desired  conclusions;  is  silent 
about  facts  of  which  it  dare  not  speak,  and  most  loquacious 
in  setting  forth  its  favorite  opinions  and  conclusions.  All  this 
we  will  prove  by  quotations  from  the  two  documents.  With 
this  understanding  of  its  past  history,  we  are  now  prepared  to 
look  at  the  question  as  it  stands  plain  and  clear  before  us. 


8 


Let  us  take  two  different  views  of  this  question.  First,  as 
a  mailer  of  right,  let  us  see  in  wliat  shape  this  question  should 
iustly  have  come  up  before  a  legislative  body.  This  will  prepare 
us  for  a  second  and  more  important  consideration  of  the  matter 
of fact,  viz. :  the  strange  form  in  which  this  question  has  actually 
been  presented  before  the  New-  York  Senate. 

I.  As  A  MATTER  OF  RIGHT,  let  US  see  in  what  shape  this  ques- 
tion should  justly  have  come  up  before  a  legislative  body. 

We  suppose  that  it  would  require  no  very  deep  or  profound 
knowledge  of  Blackstone  to  settle  it  as  an  axiom  ot  common 
sense,  that  there  should  be  no  intermingling  of  the  legislative 
and  ^McZ/czaZ  functions.  Legislators  should  never  attempt  to 
clothe  themselves  in  ermine.  The  question  regarding  the  right- 
ful possessors  of  the  property  of  Trinity  Church,  or  any  other 
property,  is  purely  a  legal  one.  We  hold  that  it  is  a  question 
belonging  to  the  Courts,  not  to  the  Legislature.  But  even 
those  who  think  that  it  may  be  forced  upon  the  Legislature, 
cannot  differ  from  us  in  the  position  that  its  merits  are  to  be 
determined  by  the  acts  of  the  past,  and  not  by  the  misdeeds 
of  the  present.  In  this  view,  we  are  happy  to  find  that  the 
learned  Committee  of  the  Senate  fully  and  entirely  agree  with 
us.  Among  the  many  points  of  difference,  and  their  name  is 
legion,  we  are  most  happy  to  discover  one  of  agreement !  We 
trust  the  following  declaration  was  not  lost  upon  the  Honor- 
able Senate : 

"  The  objection  which  is  raised  to  the  proposition  to  allow 
'  all  the  inhabitants  in  communion,'  &c.,  to  vote  for  vestrymen, 
for  the  reason  that  it  may  create  tumult  or  confusion,  is  one 
of  little  weight,  compared  with  a  right  vested  under  ancient 
grants  and  acts.  It  may  become  an  unwieldy  corporation ; 
but  in  looking  at  the  right  of  the  beneficiaries,  we  can  hardly 
be  called  upon  to  take  into  account  the  difficulties  which  may 
attend  the  annual  elections." — {Seotid  Report  of  Select  Com- 
mittee, p.  S.) 

We  accept  this  from  the  Committee  of  the  Senate,  as  a  true 
view  of  the  real  question  at  issue.  They  here  declare  that 
consequences,  however  disastrous,  are  not  to  be  considered, 
because  they  furnish  an  objection  "  of  little  weight,  compared 


9 


with  a  right  vested  under  ancient  grants  and  acts."  If,  as  they 
justly  argue,  mere  consequences  are  not  to  be  regarded,  liow  can 
any  weight  be  given  to  antecedents  which  do  not  touch  these 
"  ancient  grants  and  acts?"  By  their  own  showing,  the  only 
question  which  could  be  entertained  by  the  Senate,  was  whether 
a  repeal  of  the  Law  of  1814  was  called  for,  because  it  un- 
justljj  affected  "  a  right  vested  wider  ancient  grants  and  acts." 
By  the  showing  of  their  own  Committee,  then,  it  is  no  mere 
presumption  of  private  judgment.  The  proper  course  of  the 
Senate,  when  this  matter  was  presented,  should  have  been  to 
appoint  a  Committee  of  the  most  learned  lawryers  of  their  own 
body  to  investigate  this  great  question  of  law,  and  tiien  to  give 
the  result  in  the  shape  of  a  report  upon  these  legal  points.  If 
such  a  Committee,  sufficiently  learned  in  the  law,  could  not  be 
gathered  from  their  own  legislative  ranks,  the  law  officers  and 
Judges  of  the  >State  were  easy  of  access.  We  do  not  happen 
to  know  to  what  profession  the  members  of  the  Select  Com- 
mittee belong,  but  the  manner  and  result  of  their  labors  have 
not  impressed  us  with  any  profound  veneration  for  the  depth 
of  their  legal  attainments. 

The  Resolutions  of  Inquiry,  adopted  by  the  Senate,  were 
the  first  steps  from  the  direct  course.  This  led  to  the  second 
false  step,  the  appointment  of  a  Committee,  with  inquisitorial 
powers,  to  pry  into  matters  not  within  the  province  of  legisla- 
tion, and  which  did  not,  as  the  Committee  itself  shows,  really 
affect  the  question  at  issue.  This  was,  indeed,  a  long  stride 
from  the  straight  path  of  just  legislation  over  freemen,  audit  has 
led  the  Committee  and  Senate  into  the  maze  of  a  labyrinth,  in 
quest  of  the  truth  which  was  plain  and  straight  before  them. 
If  such  important  interests  were  not  involved — if  truth  and  jus- 
tice and  indefeasible  right  were  not  at  stake,  it  would  be  al- 
most amusing  to  follow  the  strange  windings  and  turnings  of 
their  erratic  course.  There  is  a  sort  of  fascination  to  the  hu- 
man mind  in  following  the  devious  steps  of  error,  as  lights  and 
shadows  diversify  its  track,  giving  it  the  charm  of  variety ; 
while  there  is  less  delight  in  the  straight  and  even  path  of  truth 
on  which  the  broad  daylight  only  shines.  We  admire  the  jus- 
tice, and  the  high-souled  magnanimity  of  this  Select  Committee 


10 


of  our  Senate,  when  we  hear  them  nohly  resolving  to  uphold 
the  riglil,  fearless  of  consequences,  unterrified  by  calamities 
which  may  ensue,  and  which  the  Bishops  of  New- York  and 
other  witnesses  have  proved  will  be  great.  No  "  tumult  or 
confusion"  (p.  8  of  Report)  of  Church  or  State— no  "difficulties," 
however  appalling,  shall  affright  their  souls  in  the  stead- 
fast purpose  of  maintaining  "  a  riijht  vested  under  ancient 
grants  and  acts."  Visions  of  old  patriots  and  Senators  arise 
before  us,  and  we  almost  hear,  in  this  triple  voice  of  the  Com- 
mittee, the  tones  of  Solon,  Lycurgus,  and  Brutus.  But  the 
vision  fades,  as  mortal  visions  too  often  do,  when  we  furtlier 
hear  these  same  voices,  in  which  the  noble  resolve  had  been 
expressed,  not  to  shrink  from  "right,"  because  of  the  evil  which 
should  ensue,  resting  the  whole  strength  of  their  case  on  proofs, 
that  because  the  present  holders  of  this  right,  "  vested  under  an- 
cient grants  and  acts"  had  not  wisely  used  their  powers,  therefore, 
U  should  he  conveyed  to  other  hands.  Thus  the  heroic  souls, 
which  were  unterrified  by  future  consequences,  are  overwhelmed 
by  past  consequences.    Truly,  "  circumstances  alter  cases  !" 

After  themselves  laying  down  this  just  principle,  from  which 
there  is  no  escape,  that  this  was  a  question  of  right,  determined 
alone  by  ancient  grants  and  acts,  the  Select  Committee  rest  the 
great  burden  of  their  proof  upon  what  ?  Upon  Law — upon  the 
tenor,  and  words,  and  provisions  of  "  ancient  grants  and 
acts  ?"  Let  the  evidence  of  their  own  selected  witnesses,  and 
their  own  Reports,  answer.  These  documents  are  accessible 
to  every  reader,  and  they  will  settle  the  truth  or  falsity  of  this 
Review.  We  challenge  any  reader  of  these  to  disprove  the 
correctness  of  the  assertion,  that,  according  to  these  documents, 
the  merits  of  the  question  presented  for  the  decision  of  the 
Senate,  by  their  Committee,  are  made  to  rest  wholly  upon 
the  manner  in  which  this  trust  has  been  administered  by  those 
who  have  held  it  since  1814.  The  "  right  vested  "  in  the  pre- 
sent Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  is  to  be  disturbed  by  new 
legislation,  not  because  of  "  ancient  grants  and  acts,"  but  be- 
cause of  the  errors  and  sins  of  the  Vestry.  They  have  not 
built  free  Churches  ;  they  have  not  endowed  charities;  they 
have  not  given  lots  ;  they  have  given  too  much  to  high  church- 


11 


men,  too  liltle  to  the  "low;"  they  have  uiiderv;.lued  the 
amount  of  their  property,  &c.,  &c.,  therefore  they  niay  no 
longer  be  stewards  ! 

Between  two  and  three  pages  of  tlie  first  Report  out  of  the 
twenty-seven,  are  alone  devoted  to  the  discussion  of  the  ques- 
tion as  one  of  law  and  "right  vested  binder  ancient  grants  and 
acts"  and  this  consists  mainly  of  the  reiterations  of  the 
opinions  and  views  presented  by  the  single  witness  who  testified 
on  this  point — the  Hon.  Luther  Bradish.  We  suppose  it  was 
rather  hard  to  get  lawyers  to  give  opinions,  under  oath,  as  to 
disputed  points  of  law.  Yet,  prefixed  to  his  extended  views  of 
this  question,  appear  the  words,  "  Luther  Bradish,  sworn .'" 
Another  eminent  lawyer  among  the  witnesses,  Mr.  Cambre- 
leng,  attempts  no  sucii  solemn  exposition.  In  the  second  Re- 
port of  the  Committee,  parts  of  Jive  pages  out  of  the  twenty-one 
are  given  to  the  discussion  of  the  law  points,  and  all  the  rest 
devoted  to  a  discussion  of  the  maladministration  of  the  Ves- 
try, and  a  vindication  of  the  assertions  of  the  first  Report  on 
this  subject !  This  appears  the  more  remarkable,  as  two  learned 
lawyers,  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  subject,  Mr.  Gouver- 
neur  M.  Ogden,  and  Hon.  A.  J.  Parker,  argued  the  case  be- 
fore the  Committee,  on  "  the  questions  of  fact"  and  "  the 
questions  of  law."  Both  these  arguments  are  distinguished 
by  signal  ability,  and  by  the  clearness  and  force  with  which 
they  place  the  questions  before  the  Committee.  They  are  brief, 
terse,  and  pointed,  witliout  one  needless  word.  The  Commit- 
tee hardly  deign  to  notice  these,  except  to  say  fp.  3)  that  they 
were  "very  long,"  and  they  "quietly  listened"  to  them! 
Perhaps,  as  the  learned  counsel  did  not  swear  to  their  own 
arguments  and  opinions,  they  were  so  lightly  regarded. 
They  however  show,  in  this  treatment,  their  disregard  of 
the  evidence  presented  by  the  Vestry.  Indeed,  this  Commit- 
tee-entertain quite  an  original  view  of  the  office  of  a  Report  of 
a  Committee.  It  has  been  usually  understood  to  be  a  digested 
account  of  the  facts  and  arguments  presented  before  them. 
This  Select  Committee  appear  to  consider  it  as  a  statement  of 
their  own  views  and  opinions,  quite  independent  of  the  evi- 
dence, and  the   arguments   addressed  to  them !     We  can 


12 


only  thus  understand,  not  only  their  omissions  and  contradic- 
tions of  important  evidence,  as  we  shall  show  hereafter,  but 
also  their  entire  silence  as  to  the  unanswerable,  as  we  think, 
arguments  on  the  "questions  of  law,"  addressed  to  them  by  the 
learned  and  distinguished  Counsel  of  Trinity  Church. 

We  arc  compelled  to  think,  however,  unwillingly,  that  this 
Committee  were  influenced  by  a  partial  desire  to  make  out  a 
case  against  Trinity ;  that  they  lost  sight  of  their  duty  as 
Senators  of  this  great  State,  in  looking  after  the  interests  of 
those  for  whom  they  appear  as  advocates,  when  their  Report 
magnifies  and  dwells  upon  every  point  of  adverse  evidence, 
though  not  bearing  upon  the  question  at  issue,  and  passes 
over,  ''in  solemn  silence,"  the  great  points  of  the  case,  as  pre- 
sented by  Judge  Parker,  in  his  arguments  on  "the  questions 
of  law."  A  very  brief  summary  of  these  unnoticed  points  will 
establish  this  conviction. 

We  can  discover  no  special  reference  to  the  following  points 
of  law,  made  by  the  Counsel  of  Trinity  Church. 

1.  That  nearly  all  this  evidence,  on  both  sides,  is  entirely 
foreign  to  the  main  object — the  repeal  of  the  law  of  1814. 

2.  That  the  original  charter  of  1697  provided  that  the 
Wardens  and  Vestrymen  should  be  elected  '  by  the  majority 
of  votes  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  parish,''  in  communion  of 
our  Protestant  Church  of  England,  within  our  City  of  New- 
York. 

3.  By  the  act  of  1784,  in  addition  to  communicants,  those 
now  allowed  to  vote,  'who  shall  either  hold,  occupy,  or  enjoy 
a  pew  or  seat  m  the  said  church,  and  shall  regularly  pay  to  the 
support  of  said  cJiurch,^  &,c.  The  plea  that  the  words,  in  said 
church,  apply  to  all  communicants  and  pew-holders  in  the 
Episcopal  Church  of  New- York,  is  disproved  by  the  title  of 
the  Act,  which  is  called  "An  Act  for  making  alterations  in  the 
charter  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinitij  Church,^'  &c.  And  these 
words  are  further  explained  in  the  second  section,  where 
power  is  given  to  the  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  to  call  and  in- 
duct a  Rector  to  the  said  church,  so  often  as  there  shall  be  any 
vacancy  therein. 

4.  That  from  1784  to  1812,  a  period  of  twenty-eight  years, 


13 


though  from  1793  there  were  other  churches,  no  one  out  of  the 
parish  voted  or  claimed  a  right  to  vote.  That  this  claim  was 
made,  but  not  allowed,  by  two  or  three  persons  of  another 
parish,  in  a  contested  election.  This  claim  led  to  the  applica- 
tion, on  the  part  of  the  Vestry,  for  the  law  of  1814,  entitled, 
'An  Act  to  alter  the  name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity 
Church  in  New- York,  and  for  other  purposes.'  " 

In  this  connection,  Judge  Parker  quotes  from  a  letter  ad- 
dressed, on  the  12th  April,  1812,  by  the  Rector,  Wardens 
and -Vestry  of  St.  Marks : — 

AVe  have  learned,  with  regret,  that  some  of  our  Episcopal  brethren 
assert  the  claim  of  a  general  right,  in  all  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  this 
island,  to  vote  at  your  elections  for  Churchwardens  and  Vestrymen. 
Whatever  color  may  be  given  to  this  claim  by  any  ambiguous  words  to 
be  found  in  your  charter,  we  sincerely  take  pleasure  in  declaring,  that  the 
congregation  of  St.  Mark's,  which  we  represent,  have  no  desire  to  assert 
the  claim,  and  that  we  will,  at  any  time  hereafter,  cheerfully  unite  with 
your  respectable  body,  in  an  application  to  the  Legislature,  if  the  measure 
shall  be  thought  expedient,  to  explain  the  charter,  and  confine  the  right 
of  voting  to  the  congregations  of  the  churches  under  your  immediate 
government. 

5.  It  is  an  erroneous  impression,  that  the  property  of  Trinity 
Church  is  held  in  trust  for  the  benefit  of  others.  A  careful 
examination  of  the  charter  will  show  that  the  property  was 
given  to  the  corporation  alone,  as  its  own  absolute  property. 
That  this  erroneous  impression  on  this  subject  has  grown  out 
of  the  original  name  given  to  the  corporation.  That  the  grant 
made  to  "The  Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New- 
York,  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  Church,  &;c.,  is  a  grant 
to  the  Corporation,  in  conformity  with  old  titles.  That  exactly 
similar  titles  exist  in  the  cases  of  St.  Peter's  Church,  Albany  ; 
of  the  Church  of  Fishkill ;  Grace  Church,  Jamaica,  Long 
Island,  and  in  the  first  Church  at  Poughkeepsie." 

6.  The  original  charter,  giving  power  to  the  church  officers 
"to  choose,  nominate,  and  appoint  so  many  officers  of  our 
liege  people,  as  they  should  think  fit,  and  shall  be  willing  to 
accept  the  same,  to  be  members  of  the  said  Church  and  Cor- 
poration." 

7.  That  a  person  can  be  a  parishioner  in  but  one  parish. 


8.  That  a  change  in  chartered  rights  cannot  be  made  by 
the  Legislature  alone,  but  requires  also  the  consent  of  the  Corpo- 
ration. This  point  is  alluded  to  by  the  Committee.  In'reply 
to  it,  they  say  that  as  they  have  come  to  a  conclusion  to  intro- 
duce a  bill  to  amend  (he  act,  and  not  for  its  repeal— this 
question  does  not  properly  arise." 

A  reference  to  the  amendment  reported,  will  show  that  the 
old  bottles"  will  hardly  hold  this  "  new  wine." 

9.  The  lapse  of  forty-three  years  is  conclusive  against  any 
supposed  individual  claim  of  a  corporator.  It  is  a  lapse  of  time 
twice  that  required  to  bar  a  claim  to  real  property  ;  seven 
times  that  which  would  bar  an  action  on  contract,  &c. 

Surely  these,  and  many  others  like  them,  were  points  which 
might  well  have  claimed  the  special  notice  of  this  Committee. 

Their  fair  discussion  would  have  suited  better  the  dignity 
and  object  of  this  Report  to  the  Senate  than  its  present  com- 
position, from  the  vague,  one-sided,  and  hear-say  evidence  and 
gossip  of  uninformed  and  prejudiced  witnesses.  All  such  tes- 
timony is  powerless  against  the  convictions,  and  the  evidence, 
and  the  arguments,  which  must  have  influenced  the  Legislature 
of  18)4.  It  is  no  disparagement  to  the  wisdom  of  the  present 
Senate  and  Assembly  to  say,  that  the  action  of  such  a  body 
of  men,  of  whom  the  Empire  State  may  well  be  proud,  carries 
with  it  a  weight  of  authority  deserving  their  highest  venera- 
tion. No  urgent  calls  of  interested  parties,  no  special  plead- 
ings of  partizan  committees,  should  drive  them  to  cast  reproach 
upon  the  wisdom  of  the  past,  of  noble  patriots  whose  honored 
names  have  even  been  defamed  in  this  unholy  cause.  Sooner 
far  should  they  burst  the  chains  of  party  bondage,  than  rudely 
break  the  golden  links  by  which  memory  connects  them  with 
the  honored  dead — the  illustrious  legislators  of  1814.  We  can- 
not better  refer  to  them  than  in  the  eloquent  language  of  Judge 
Parker,  in  his  argument  before  the  Select  Committee  : 

At  that  time,  the  office  of  Attorney-General  of  this  State  was  filled  by 
that  eminent  jurist  and  f^ootl  man,  Abraham  Van  Vechten,  and  the  mat- 
ter was  referred  to  him  by  the  Assembly  for  his  opinion.  He  reported  as 
follows:  '•  That  he  has  examined  a  printed  copy  of  the  charter  granted 
in  the  year  1697  to  the  rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New- York, 
as  then  established  by  law,  and  the  aots  altering  the  said  charter,  together 


15 


with  the  bill  referred  to  in  the  resolution  entitled,  '  An  Act  to  alter  the 
name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  Citj-  of  New- York,  and 
for  other  purposes,'  and  he  is  of  opinion  that  the  purpose  of  the  said  bill 
will  not  defeat  or  vary  any  existing  vested  rights  under  the  said  charter 
and  acts. " 

Gentlemen — The  Legislature  of  1813  that  passed  that  act,  yras  one  of 
the  ablest  that  ever  assembled  within  this  capitol.  Among  its  members 
■were  Daniel  Cady,  Elisha  Williams,  J.  Rutsen  Van  Rens.selaer,  Josiah 
Ogden  Iloifman,  Nathan  Sanford,  Morgan  Lewis,  Erastus  Root,  and  Mar- 
tin Van  Buren,  the  most  able  and  distinguished  men  of  the  day — men 
not  likely  to  fall  into  the  error  of  invading,  by  their  legislation,  the  vested 
rights  of  any  citizen;  and  there  were  several  others  in  that  Legislature 
whom  I  ought,  perhaps,  to  have  named  in  that  list.  Six  of  those  distin- 
guished men,  whose  portraits  now  grace  these  walls,  and  who  are  looking 
down  this  day  upon  our  doings,  were  concerned  in  the  passage  of  the  act 
of  1814,  either  as  members  of  the  Legislature  or  of  the  Council  of  Re- 
vision. The  bill  did  uot  pass  the  Legislature  in  silence;  it  was  discussed 
and  examined.  When  it  came  before  the  Council  of  Revision,  objections 
in  writing  were  made  by  Chancellor  Lansing,  which,  on  further  examina- 
tion, were  abandoned,  and  finally  voted  against  by  their  author.  Those 
were  honest  days,  Mr.  Chairman,  when  a  j)ublic  officer,  who  had  been 
misled  by  an  erroneous  impression,  might  well  bo  expected  to  acknowledge 
his  error  and  correct  it.  I  hope,  sir,  all  that  honesty  has  not  yet,  in  the 
expressive  language  of  the  Rev.  Jesse  Pound,  "  died  out."  For  this 
honest  and  frank  correction  of  an  opinion  by  Chancellor  Lansing,  his 
memory  has  been  recently  defamed  by  an  editor  of  a  newspaper  in  the 
City  of  New-York,  who  has  disgraced  himself  before  the  public,  by  im- 
puting to  the  Chancellor  that  this  change  of  opinion  was  obtained  by 
corrupt  means.  Shame  upon  such  licentiousness  of  the  press;  shame  upon 
the  man  who  will  thus  assail  the  memory  of  the  honored  dead — and  the 
greater  be  the  shame  if  the  slanderer  be  the  editor  of  a  newspaper  called 
"religious."  A  cause  must  be  de.sperate  that  requires  a  resort  to  such 
disreputable  means. 

Having  thus  shown,  in  accordance  with  the  (ieclaration  of 
their  own  Committee,  how  this  great  question  of  tight  should 
have  been  presented  before  the  Senate  of  New- York,  and  how 
it  was  not  so  presented  by  their  Select  Committee,  it  remains 
for  us  to  show  : 

II.  As  A  MATTER  OF  FACT,  in  whal  manner  and  form  it  was 
presented. 

We  presume  most  of  our  readers  are  familiar  with  the  judi- 
cious Hoolver's  noble  eulogy  of  Law,  wherein  he  says,  "  her 
voice  is  the  harmony  of  the  world,"  and  he  represents  "  all  with 
uniform  consent,  admiring  her  as  the  mother  of  their  peace  and 
joy."  All  who  are  familiar  with  the  places  where  National  and 
State  Laws  are  born,  must  own  that,  like  other  infants,  their 
first  entrance  into  this  terrestrial  sphere  does  not  add  much  to 
"  the  harmony  of  the  world ;"  and  whatever  they  may  be  in 


16  ^ 

their  maternal  state,  in  their  nascent  condition,  they  are  not 
the  promoters  of  our  peace  and  joy.  The  halls  of  legislation, 
the  cradles  of  law,  are  not  the  chosen  abodes  of  harmony  and 
peace.  Disturbing  elements  within  and  without  are  ever  ut 
work,  in  unsettling  old  laws,  in  originating  new  ones.  Private 
interests,  party  ends,  popular  passions  and  prejudices,  are  buty 
in  the  work  of  legislation.  Men  of  clearest  minds,  of  strongest 
principles,  of  most  honest  aims,  are  not  unaffected  by  these  in- 
fluences. It  is  hard  to  escape  the  malaria  of  the  atmosphere 
we  breathe.  We  might  well  suppose  that  when  an  old  law 
was  to  be  changed,  or  a  new  one  made,  the  advocates  of  the 
measure  had  only  to  produce  their  strong  reasons,  to  allay 
doubts,  to  answer  objections,  and  when  conviction  was  brought 
home  to  the  minds  of  the  Legislators,  the  act  would  follow. 

Whatever  it  may  be  in  other  cases,  this  is  not  the  manner 
in  which  the  case  of  Trinity  Church  has  been  presented  to  the 
New-York  Senate.  It  has  not,  we  boldly  assert,  been  pre- 
sented as  a  question  of  right,  but  as  a  question  of  prejudice, 
resting  almost  wholly,  as  the  learned  counsel  for  Trinity  de- 
clares, on  evidence  entirely  foreign  to  the  main  object  of  the  in- 
quiry. What  has  been  the  design  of  this  cloud  of  testimony, 
which  has  risen  around  the  real  question  before  the  Legislature, 
unless  it  has  been  to  hide  the  clear  sunlight  of  ti  uth  ?  The 
December  fog,  which  gathered  round  the  Committee  in  New- 
Vork,  and  whose  density  seemed  to  increase  every  day,  it  was 
expected  would  roll  after  them  up  the  Hudson,  and  settle 
around  the  Capitol  at  Albany.  In  its  vapory  folds,  the  real 
question  has  been  obscured,  but  the  sunlight  can  penetrate  the 
thickest  mists  of  earth. 

We  have  shown  that  the  Select  Committee,  either  straving 
in  this  log  which  others  had  raised  around  them,  or  wilfully 
shutting  their  eyes,  had  lost  sight  of  the  real  question  before 
them.  We  must  now  show  that  from  the  witnesses  summoned 
by  them,  from  the  character  of  the  evidence,  and  from  the  Reports, 
the  movers  of  this  matter  in  ihe  Senate,  and  the  Committee, 
and  those  who  have  helped  their  investigations,  have  proved 
themselves  only  anxious  to  excite  prejudices  and  uphold  inter- 
ests hostile  to  Trinity  Church.    We  only  ask  a  fair  hearing, 


17 


with  the  records  accessible  by  which  we  may  be  condemned  if 
our  statements  or  conclusions  are  untrue. 

1 .  The  witnesses  summoned  by  the  Commiitee. 

Among  these  we  cheerfully  admit,  are  men  of  the  highest 
respectability  and  character,  upon  whose  integrity  we  would 
he  the  last  to  throw  the  faintest  shadow  of  suspicion.  But  no 
man,  however  honest,  is  above  the  influence  of  prejudice.  As 
mists  cloud  the  brightest  scenes  of  nature,  so  prejudice  may 
obscure  the  clearest  minds.  It  may  be  the  real  conviction  of 
these  that  the  property  of  Trinity  Church  should  be  possessed 
by  all  the  churches  in  New- York,  especially  the  one  to  which 
they  belong  ;  they  may  dislike  the  policy  of  the  Vestry,  or  ab- 
hor the  church  principles  which  prevail  among  them ;  they 
may  think  this  property  should  be  distributed  to  other  objects 
and  in  a  different  method  ;  they  may  desire  to  build  what  they 
call  free  churches,  or  endow  favorite  charities ;  they  may  be 
hostile  to  the  Episcopal  Chui'ch  or  to  all  churches,  and  have 
violent  feelings  against  ail  ecclesiastical  endowments,  and  de- 
sire the  secularization  of  this  property,  and  thus  have  strong 
prejudices  on  this  subject.  They  have  full  right  to  enjoy  their 
feelings,  and  their  prejudices,  and  their  private  convictions, 
but  these  do  not  specially  qualify  them  to  be  fair  witnesses  in 
this  important  case.  Yet  this  seems  to  be  the  rule  by  which 
the  Committee  of  the  Senate  was  guided  in  their  choice  of 
witnesses !  We  might  have  thought  they  would  have  recog- 
nized the  fact  that  every  disputed  question  has  two  sides,  but 
the  great  qualification  of  their  chosen  witnesses  seemed  to  be 
that  they  should  have  something  to  say  against  Trinity  !  Ac- 
cordingly, all  those  who  were  forward  in  the  movements  of 
1846  and  '47  appear  in  the  list  of  witnesses.  On  this  head 
nothing  better  can  be  said  than  the  words  of  Mr.  Ogden,  in 
his  clear  and  forcible  presentment  of  the  questions  of  fact  be- 
fore the  Committee,  (p.  34.) 

And  let  me  in  this  connection  call  the  attention  of  the  Committee  to  the 
witnesses  that  are  supposed  to  substantiate  the  charges  against  the  Vestry. 
Three  of  them  are  assistant  ministers  of  Trinity  Church,  who  have  come 
to  Albany  to  explain  their  testimony,  and  have  vindicated  the  Church  ;  two 
are  vestrymen,  who  spoke  of  matters  since  explained  ;  eleven  others  testi- 
fied, merely,  as  to  the  values  of  lots  ;  Clayton,  as  to  the  lettings  of  pews 

2 


18 


in  Trinity  Chapol;  Wiley  and  Webb,  as  to  immaterial  matters  ;  and  Dr. 
Muhlciiburg,  whose  motives  no  man  ■would  impeacli,  testified,  as  he  him- 
self says,  on  information  merely,  so  far  as  concerns  any  facts  in  dispute, 
and  certainly  under  an  entire  misapprehension  of  the  ability  of  Trinity 
Church.  Leaving  out  those  I  have  just  named,  all  the  other  witnesses  are 
of  two  classes,  and  of  two  classes  only.  They  arc  clergymen  who  have 
applied  on  behalf  of  their  churches  to  Trinity  Church  for  aid,  and  have 
been  unsuccessful  in  their  applications  ;  or  they  arc  parties  to  this  con- 
troversy, whom  it  suits  now  to  remain  concealed,  but  who  were  engaged 
in  the  same  contest  in  1846-47,  as  appears  in  evidence,  and  who,  it  may 
be  seen  by  the  public  prints,  are  at  this  moment  the  most  active  in  the 
same  attempt  which  was  made  in  those  years,  with  the  exception  of  Dr. 
Tyng,  who,  not  then  in  New- York,  was  not  on  the  former  occasions  a 
party,  but  is  now  among  the  most  violent.  They  sought,  under  cover  of 
the  clamor  they  intended  to  raise,  and  the  popular  prejudice  they  hoped 
to  excite,  to  procure  on  the  instant  the  repeal  of  the  Act  of  1814.  Actu- 
ated, then,  by  the  strongest  interest,  and,  if  there  is  any  force  in  my  com- 
ments upon  the  course  of  these  proceedings,  attached  with  all  the  blame 
and  odium  that  ought  to  fall  upon  the  authors  of  the  present  attack,  they 
came  before  the  Committee  to  testify  to  suspicions,  rumors,  and  hearsay, 
attributing  unworthy  motives  to  gentlemen,  if  not  so  high  in  position,  at 
least  as  respectable  as  themselves.  That  they  are  gentlemen  of  respecta- 
bility and  character,  I  admit,  but  their  positions  cannot  justify  disreputable 
conduct,  though  prompted  by  party  prejudice,  and  narrow,  distorted  views. 

As  a  striking  illustration  of  the  animus  and  strong  feelings 
governing  these  witnesses,  we  quote  from  the  letter  of  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Taylor  of  Grace  Church,  excusing  his  non-appearance 
at  Albany,  at  the  sunnmons  of  the  Committee.  After  expres- 
sing "  vhe  most  perfect  respect  for  the  Committee,"  he  adds  : 

"While  I  thus  freely  and  sincerely  express  my  respect  for  your  Com- 
mittee, and  my  regret  at  not  being  permitted  to  aid  them  as  I  best  could, 
in  their  important  labors,  yet  you  must  permit  me  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  none  of  this  respect,  and  nothing  of  this  regret  is  intended  by  me  to  ex- 
tend to  any  hired  agents  of  Trinity,  at  whose  instance,  as  I  take  it,  the 
summons  now  before  me  was  issued. 

During  the  meetings  of  your  Committee  in  this  city,  every  opportunity 
-was  afforded  to  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  either  to  summon  wit- 
nesses or  to  propose  cross-interrogatories  to  every  witness  before  your  C  om- 
mittee  ;  and  if  in  their  superciliousness  or  reckless  negligence  they  did 
not  avail  themselves  of  their  privilege,  the  consequences  must  rest  upon 
themselves.  The  vexatious  course  tliey  are  now  pursuing,  of  attempting 
to  drag  gentlemen  from  their  business  and  their  homes  at  this  inclement 
season  of  the  year,  from  whom  they  well  know  that  they  cannot  ob- 
tain one  word  of  evidence  in  any  way  useful  to  Trinity  Church,  has  no 
other  earthly  object  than  to  gain  time,  and  thus  to  de-jeat,  hy  j)o.ifponing 
one  of  the  most  salutary  measures  of  reform  that  has  ever  claimed  the  at- 
tention of  the  Legislature  of  the  State." 

The  Reverend  writer,  it  will  be  seen,  expresses  his  "  regret 
at  not  being  permitted  to  aid  "  the  Committee  "  in  their  im- 


19 


portant  labors."  The  direction  of  his  testimony  shows  to  what 
these  "  labors  "  tend.  The  "  aid  "  of  the  witness,  "the  labors  " 
of  the  Committee,  harmonize  in  loving  concord,  only  disturbed 
by  thoughts  of  "  the  hired  agents  of  Trinity,"  wickedly  "  at- 
tempting to  drag  gentlemen  from  their  business  and  their  homes," 
with  the  vain  purpose  of  getting  the  whole  truth  out  of  them, 
which  the  Vestry,  in  their  "reckless  negligence,"  thought  they 
would  give  of  themselves.  One  who  desired  to  "  aid  "  the  Com- 
mittee's pious  "labors,"  feels  justly  indignant  at  the  very  thought 
that  any  of  their  chosen  witnesses  should  be  exposed,  "  at  this 
inclement  season  of  the  year,"  to  the  rigors  of  a  cross-examina- 
tion. We  wonder  it  did  not  strike  one  of  the  Doctor's  acute- 
ness,  that  if  "  gentlemen  "  had  minded  "  their  business,"  and 
not  been  "  busy-bodies  in  other  men's  matters,"  there  would 
have  been  no  occasion  to  drag  them  from  their  homes. 

Grace  Church  and  others  may,  in  the  estimation  of  some, 
monopolize  all  the  "gentlemen"  of  the  city,  but  among  those 
who  are  stigmatized  as  "  the  hired  agents  of  Trinity" — we  hope 
their  gentility  is  better  than  their  pay— are  some  who  stand  in 
this  community  on  as  high  a  level  even  as  the  Rector  of  Grace 
Church.  In  the  comparison  some  might  be  reminded  of  the 
familiar  dialogue,  "  Are  you  the  man  wat's  going  to  ride  ?" 
"  Well,  I'm  the  gen'leman  wot's  going  to  drive  you."  So  much 
for  the  chosen  witnesses  of  this  Select  Committee. 

2.  We  have  now  to  speak  of  the  character  of  the  evidence 
sought  by  the  Committee.  Of  course,  from  what  has  been  said 
of  the  chosen  witnesses,  it  was  for  the  most  part  against  Trinity. 
The  sole  witness  who  testified  on  the  question  of  7-ighl,  which 
the  Committee  has  declared  to  be  the  only  question  to  be  re- 
garded, was  the  Hon.  Luther  Bradish.  His  testimony  is  thus 
characterized  by  Mr.  Ogden  in  his  argument : 

"  Controverted  positions,  disproved  over  and  over  again,  passed  upon 
after  careful  arguments  by  counsel  far  abler  than  Mr.  Bradish,  before  the 
Committee  of  the  House  of  Assembly  in  1847,  and  overruled  by  their  de- 
cision then,  are  expected  to  derive  new  efficacy  supported  by  an  oath,  when 
presented  at  this  day  as  the  ground  for  the  decision  of  the  Senate. 

"  Again,  to  point  out  another  instance  shovring  the  entire  unreliability 
of  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Bradish,  I  call  the  attention  of  the  Committee  to 
the  fact  that  the  act  of  1814  had  passed  both  houses  on  the  2d  of  April, 
1813,  [see  p.  95  of  Mr.  Bradish's  testimony  in  the  first  Report  of  the  Com- 


20 


mittee,]  and  the  pamphlet  of  Col.  Troup  is  dated  on  the  Cth  of  September, 
1813,  more  than  six  months  after  the  act  had  passed  both  houses.  Yet 
Mr.  Bradish  says,  [p.  101  of  first  Report  of  this  Committee, J  that  as  an 
inducement  to  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  1814,  it  was  urged  "as  morally 
certain,  that  the  future  increase  of  the  population  of  the  city  would  strongly 
recommend  to  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  the  policy  of  dividing 
its  Corporators,  and  setting  them  oif  in  separate  Churches,  with  suitable 
endowments,  and  to  enable  the  Vestry  to  do  this  in  a  mode  free  from  all 
legal  doubts,  was  an  object  of  the  bill.  The  hill  was  drawn  and  passed 
accordingly."  Yet  the  truth  is,  that  the  bill  was  drawn,  and  passed  both 
houses  six  months  before  Col.  Troup  said  anything  respecting  it  in  the  par- 
agraph alluded  to,  and  from  which  Mr.  Bradish  derives  his  authority. 

All  the  other  evidence,  almost  without  exception,  may  be 
characterized  as  having  nothing  to  do  with  the  question,  sel- 
dom or  never  positive,  claiming  little  direct  acquaintance  with 
the  facts  of  which  it  testifies,  speaking  on  the  information  of 
others  who  themselves  heard  others  say  so  and  so,  setting  forth 
opinions  and  private  judgments,  and  then  swearing  to  their  cor- 
rectness. We  unhesitatingly  pronounce  the  greater  portion  of 
the  evidence  taken  before  the  Committee  in  New- York  as  the 
most  vague  and  unsatisfactory  body  of  testimony  ever  pre- 
sented before  a  judicial  tribunal.  Much  of  it  is  the  merest 
gossip  and  scandal,  such  as  they  say  a  certain  sex  at  a  certam 
age  indulge  in  around  the  tea-table  !  Not  one  of  these  witnesses 
was  subjected  to  a  cross-examination.  There  is  nothing  strong 
or  positive  about  this  testimony,  except  the  oaths,  which  would 
have  been  listened  to  in  a  court  of  law.  Yet  upon  this  the 
Committee  base  their  first  Report,  bringing  the  gravest  charges 
against  the  Vestry,  supported  by  the  evidence  of  those  who 
own  that  they  know  little  or  nothing  of  the  subject ! 

We  have  only  space  for  a  few  illustrations  as  proofs  of  the 
above  assertions.  The  Rev.  Jesse  Pound  swears  that  (p.  83) 
"he  was  considerably  acquainted  with  the  proceedings  of 
Trinity  Church  in  managing  their  fund.  J  do  not  consider  the 
trust  has  been  administered  in  such  a  way  as  best  to  promote 
the  object  for  which  it  was  given."  Or,  as  we  may  expound 
his  meaning,  the  Vestry  did  not  advance  the  glory  of  God  and 
the  good  of  man,  in  the  person  of  the  Rev.  witness,  by  paying 
off  the  debts  and  supporting  him  in  a  churcii  which  has  proved 
itself  to  be  in  an  unfavorable  situation.  Trinity  was  surely 
not  answerable  for  the  falling  off  of  the  congregation. 


21 


The  Rev.  Dr.  Tyng  swears  (p.  86)  concerning  the  statement 
in  the  report  of  Trinity  Church  relative  to  St.  George's 
Church — "  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief  it  is  not 
correct,"  That  the  Doctor's  "  best  knowledge"  on  this  subject 
is  none  of  the  best,  a  poor  foundation  for  "belief"  to  rest  on, 
is  shown  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Berrian's  positive  testimony  upon  cer- 
tain knowledge.    (See  testimony,  p.  37.) 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Taylor  (p.  104)  heard  "  a  very  worthy  minis- 
ter" say  that  his  warden  had  told  him  that  he,  the  warden,  had 
applied  to  the  Comptroller  of  Trinity  Church  for  aid  in  their 
pecuniary  embarrassment.  The  reply  was,  "We  can  give  you 
no  help,  for  your  minister  voted  against  us  at  the  last  Conven- 
tion." This  case  would  be  very  strong,  and  its  tragic  conse- 
quence very  lamentable,  if  the  power  rested  in  the  Comptroller 
to  give  such  a  reply.  Such  applications  can  only  be  decided 
by  the  voice  of  a  majority  in  Vestry  meeting.  As  a  conclusive 
proof  of  the  worth  of  such  kind  of  evidence,  we  learn  that  W. 
H.  Harison,  Esq.,  the  comptroller  at  that  time,  has  denied  pub- 
licly, over  his  signature,  that  such  an  occurrence  ever  took  place. 

Mr.  John  D.  Wolfe  (p.  105),  formerly  a  Vestryman,  testi- 
fies— "  Have  never  seen  a  list  of  the  corporators  ;  the  Vestry- 
men are  not  allowed  to  see  it,  that  I  know  of."  The  Rector 
(p.  35)  testifies  positively,  as  a  fact  he  knows  of,  that  this  list 
is  accessible  to  the  Vestrymen  at  any  time,  and  open  to  the 
inspection  of  the  corporators  at  the  annual  elections. 

Mr.  Stephen  Cambreleng,  (p.  Ill),  with  his  usual  candor,  in 
reply  to  the  question — "  Are  you  intimately  acquainted  with 
the  affairs  of  Trinity  Church?"  answers — "I  cannot  say  that 
I  am."  The  same  degree  of  candor  would  have  ensured  a  simi- 
lar answer  from  every  adverse  witness. 

The  Rev.  R.  S.  Rowland,  and  the  Rev.  J.  G.  Geer  (p.  118), 
testify  to  the  fact,  that  the  generous  offer  of  the  former  was  not 
responded  to  by  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church.  But  the  evi- 
dence of  these  excellent  and  devoted  clergymeil  does  not  reach 
the  point,  as  they  had  no  knovvledge  of,  or,  at  least,  do  not  de- 
clare, the  reasons  which  influenced  the  Vestry  in  not  acceding 
to  the  request  alluded  to  Their  evidence,  moreover,  so  far 
as  it  goes,  helps  to  disprove  another  charge — that  of  partiality 


22 


to  those  called  "  high  churchmen."  We  have  never  heard  the 
worthy  clergymen  classed  among  the  so-called,  "  low." 

We  might  cite  further  instances,  but  we  must  conclude  with 
this  which  suggests  the  great  radical  defect,  impairing,  if  not 
destroying,  the  force  of  almost  the  whole  of  the  testimony  ad- 
verse to  the  Corporation.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Taylor  clearly  points 
out  this  defect  (p.  104),  when  he  declares  his  unfavorable 
opinion  is  formed  "  from  ^y  outward  observation  of  their 
acts."  The  acts  of  the  Corporation,  in  denying  requests,  and 
in  the  application  of  their  means,  may  appear  in  a  very  un- 
favorable light  to  outward  observation,  when  this  may  give  no 
just  view  of  their  character.  Reason,  judgment,  common 
sense,  which  should  guide  a  body  of  rational  men,  whether 
they  be  a  Vestry  or  a  Senate,  are  subjects  of  inward  observa- 
tion. The  doors  of  the  Senate  are  open,  and  their  debates, 
showing  the  reason  of  their  acts,  are  heard  ;  so  the  public  can, 
and  will  form  correct  opinions  of  their  doings.  Not  so  with  a 
Vestry.  And  we  hold,  that  no  evidence,  from  mere  "  outward 
observation,"  like  most  of  that  on  which  the  first  Report  was 
based,  can  fulfil  the  solemn  character  of  sworn  testimony — 
the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  hut  the  truth  ! 

Evidence  against  the  acts  of  a  body  of  men,  who  sit  with 
closed  doors,  framed  from  mere  observation,  can  never  convict 
them  of  wrong.  It  does  not  touch  the  reasons  which  induced 
the  outward  acts,  and  by  which  alone  the  right  or  wrong  of 
these  acts  can  be  determined.  Such,  we  think,  from  a  careful 
examination,  is  the  prevailing  character  of  the  evidence  given  by 
the  chosen  witnesses  of  the  Select  Committee. 

As  a  striking  illustration  of  the  end  for  which  this  evidence 
was  taken,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was  drawn  out, 
we  are  indebted  to  Gil  Bias.  There  are  too  many  points  of 
resemblance.  Our  readers  may  remember  that  the  inventive 
Ambrose  de  Lamela,  with  a  view  to  the  fleecing  of  Samuel 
Simon,  a  wealthy  Jew,  but  who  had  become  a  convert  to  the 
Church,  assumed  the  character  of  an  officer  of  the  Holy  Inqui- 
sition, Don  Raphael  that  of  his  Secretary,  and  Gil  Bias  that  of 
an  Alguazil.  The  preliminary  inquiry  was  first  made  of  a  land- 
lord in  the  neighborhood,  who  had  some  acquaintance  with 
Simon. 


23 


"Mr.  Secretary,  with  his  paper  already  in  his  hand  and  pen 
behind  his  ear,  took  his  seat,  pompously,  and  made  ready  to 
take  down  the  landlord's  deposition,  who  promised  solemnly, 
on  his  part,  not  to  suppress  one  tittle  of  the  real  fact.  ''  So  far  so 
good,"  said  the  worshipful  commissioner.  "  We  have  only  to 
proceed  in  our  examination.  You  will  only  just  answer  my 
questions,  but  do  not  interlard  your  replies  with  any  comments 
of  your  own.  Do  you  often  see  Samuel  Simon  at  church?" 
"I  never  thought  of  looking  for  him,''  said  the  drawer  of  corks, 
"but  I  do  not  know  that  I  ever  saw  him  there  in  my  life."' 
"  Very  good,"  cried  the  Inquisitor.  "  Write  down  that  the 
defendant  never  goes  to  church."  "  I  do  not  say  so,  your  wor- 
ship," answered  the  landlord,  "I  only  say  that  I  never  happened 
to  see  him  there.  We  may  have  been  at  church  together,  and 
yet  not  have  come  across  each  other."  "  My  good  friend," 
replied  Lamela  "  you  forget  that  you  are  deposing  to  facts,  and 
not  arguing.  Remember  what  I  told  you,  contempt  of  court 
is  a  heinous  offence  ;  you  are  to  give  a  sound  and  discreet  evi- 
dence, every  iota  of  what  makes  against  him,  and  not  a  word 
in  his  favor,  if  you  knew  volumes."  "  If  that  is  your  practice, 
O  upright  and  impartial  Judge,"  resumed  our  host,  ''  my  testi- 
mony will  scarcely  be  worth  the  trouble  of  taking.  I  know 
nothing  about  the  tradesman  you  are  inquiring  after,  and 
therefore  can  tell  neither  good  nor  harm  of  him,  but  if  you  wish 
to  examine  into  his  private  life,  1  will  run  and  call  Gaspard,  his 
apprentice,  whom  you  may  question  as  much  as  you  please. 
The  lad  comes  and  takes  his  glass  here  sometimes  with  his 
friends.  Bless  us,  what  a  tongue!  He  will  rip  up  all  the 
minutest  actions  of  his  master's  life,  and  find  employment  for 
your  Secretary  till  his  wrist  aches — take  my  word  for  it."  "I 
like  your  open  dealing,"  said  Ambrose,  with  a  nod  of  approba- 
tion. "To  point  out  a  man  so  capable  of  speaking  to  the  bad 
morals  of  Simon,  is  an  instance  of  Christian  charity,  as  well 
as  of  religious  zeal.  I  shall  report  you  very  favorablv  to  the 
Inquisition." 

So  much  for  the  character  of  the  evidence  before  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Senate.  , 

3.  The  Reports. — We  now  come  to  the  last,  but  not  the 
least,  demonstration  of  the  prejudice  and  partisan  feeling  influ- 
encing the  prominent  actors,  in  this  remarkable  attempt  to 
legislate  property  out  of  the  hands  of  its  rightful  possessors — 
the  two  Reports  of  the  Select  Comfnittee.  The  first  was,  for 
the  most  part,  in  accordance  with  the  evidence,  a  fitting  super- 


/ 


24 


structure  for  such  a  foundation,  and  on  that  it  must  stand  or 
fall.  Built,  as  we  have  shown,  on  the  sand  of  prejudice  or 
partial  and  imperfect  knowledge,  and  not  upon  the  strong 
foundation  of  truth,  it  could  Eot  withstand  the  force  of  the 
"  Testimony  introduced  on  the  part  of  the  Vestry."  As  this 
overthrew  all  its  positions,  and  contradicted  all  its  statements, 
by  positive  assertions  of  truth  ;  as  its  infirm  Law  could  not 
stand  up  against  the  strong  legal  arguments  of  able  counsel, 
and  its  false  testimony  was  overwhelmed  by  the  evidence  of 
well-informed  witnesses,  a  new  effort  was  necessary.  Then 
came  the  second  Eeport,  louder  than  the  first,  as  if  the  Com- 
mittee had  only  used  the  new  evidence  for  wadding,  and  ram- 
med it  down  hard  to  produce  this  stunning  effect  ! 

As  much  has  been  claimed  for  the  evidence  of  the  witnesses 
against  Trinity,  because  of  their  high  respectability  and  char- 
racter,  a  woi'd  may  surely  be  said  in  behalf  of  those  who  have 
given  testimony  in  her  behalf.  The  Clergy  and  Laymen  who 
have  appeared  for  her,  will  hardly  suffer  by  a  comparison 
with  those  arrayed  against  her.  The  greater  knowledge,  the 
more  certain  information  which  their  position  secured,  will 
more  than  counterbalance  any  alleged  partiality  on  the  part  of 
men,  whose  honor  and  integrity  ai-e  above  the  reach  of  sus- 
picion. 

The  "testimony  introduced  on  the  part  of  the  Vestry,"  to 
counteract  the  ex  parte  evidence  gathered  by  the  Committee, 
covers  some  hundred  and  thirty  pages  of  printed  matter.  The 
arguments  of  the  able  counsel  of  Trinity,  directed  against  the 
assumptions  of  the  ex  parte  Report  of  the  Committee,  occupy 
sixty-six  more.  The  second  Report  of  the  Committee,  which 
we  should  rather  call  a  Reply  to  the  evidence  of  the  Vestry 
and  the  arguments  of  their  counsel,  is  contained  in  twenty-one 
pages.  The  witnesses  and  the  learned  counsel  of  Trinity  were 
made  to  feel  that  they  were  meeting  an  adverse  body,  when 
they  came  before  the  Committee,  as  its  Honorable  Chairman 
often  spoke  of  "our side,"  which  meant  not  the  side  of  truth, 
but  the  side  opposite  to  Trinity.  The  tenor  of  the  cross-exami- 
nations by  the  Committee  made  them  appear  in  the  light  of 
opposing  counsel!    We  may  well  ask  whether  this  was  a 


25 


proper  appreciation  of  the  responsible  office  of  those  who  held 
the  place  of  Judges  ?  The  Hon.  Mr.  Parker  begins  his  argu- 
ment with  these  words,  which  were  not  contradicted:  "I 
address  the  Committee  as  a  judicial  body."  Their  Report  to 
the  Senate  should  therefore  have  had  the  impartial  character 
of  a  judicial  charge.  It  sinks,  by  an  unworthy  degradation, 
into  the  special  plea  of  an  attorney  who  has  to  contend  against 
the  evidence !  The  positive  testimony  of  the  witnesses  on  the 
part  of  the  Vestry,  weighs  down  the  light,  vague,  and  negative 
evidence  of  the  opposing  witnesses  ;  so  the  Committee  threw 
themselves  along  with  their  Report,  into  the  scales,  to  "  make 
the  balance  true !" 

If  any  one,  with  an  unprejudiced  mind,  will  carefully  read 
the  testimony  and  arguments  of  the  witnesses  and  counsel, 
introduced  by  the  Vestry,  and  then  compare  this  with  the  Re. 
port,  their  convictions  will  be  strong  on  this  point.  Our  space 
will  only  permit  us  to  give  a  few  sajnples  ;  enough,  however, 
to  show  the  quality  of  the  whole  compound. 

The  following  sweeping  statement,  which  almost  makes  one 
whistle,  will  fitly  introduce  our  readers  to  this  Report : — 

"  It  will  appear,  from  a  careful  examination  of  the  mass  of 
evidence  presented  by  Trinity  Church,  that  every  point  of 
importance  set  forth  in  the  previous  Report  of  your  Committee, 
is  here  abundantly  corroborated." — Report,  p.  12. 

We  have  tried  hard  to  find  some  proper  epithet,  suited  at 
once  to  the  respect  we  owe  to  a  Senatorial  Committee  and  to 
the  trvAh,  to  characterize  this  statement.  We  dare  not  use  the 
mildest  euphemism,  so  we  conclude  with  the  canny  old  Scot, 
that  "  it's  mair  discrest  just  to  whistle  I"  If  our  readers  will 
take  the  pains  to  compare  this  statement  with  the  testimony  of 
the  Rector,  Dr.  Haight,  General  Dix,  and  others,  they  may 
find  it  hard  to  imitate  our  discretion. 

In  immediate  connection  with  the  above,  is  the  following 
repetition  of  a  disproved  charge  :— 

"Additional  evidence  proves  the  difficulty  in  obtaining  a 
copy  of  the  list  of  corporators,  only  one  copy  appearing  to  have 
been  ever  given,  and  that  not  until  after  a  formal  vote  of  the 
Vestry.  The  list  is  stated  to  be  inaccurate  also,  Mr.  Verplanck 
believing  that  "  many"  names  are  omitted  from  the  list  of  per- 
sons entitled  to  be  entered." 


26 


In  what  manner  this  "additional  evidence  proves  the  diffi- 
culty," will  appear  by  the  following,  from  that  of  Rev.  Dr. 
Berrian  (p.  35)  :  ~ 

"  Q.  Is  the  list  of  the  corporators  of  Trinity  Church  kept  in 
the  joint  charge  of  the  Comptroller  and  Rector?  A.  There 
seems  to  have  been  some  misapprehension  on  this  subject. 
The  list  is  kept  in  the  vestry  office,  and  is  under  the  sole  cus- 
tody of  the  Comptroller.  My  only  agency  in  regard  to  this 
list  is,  to  make  an  annual  statement  on  the  meeting  of  the  Ves- 
try, immediately  preceding  the  election  of  wardens  and  vestry- 
men at  Easter  ;  of  the  names  of  the  new  communicants,  which 
have  been  added  in  the  interval,  and  the  decrease  of  the  num- 
ber in  the  same  period,  by  death,  or  removal,  in  order  to  ren- 
der the  list  more  accurate  and  complete.  This  is  done  regu- 
larly every  year,  and  how  one  vestryman,  if  accustomed  to  be 
in  his  place,  and  giving  any  proper  attention  to  the  business 
before  iiim,  could  have  been  ignorant  af  the  purpose  for  which 
it  was  done  ;  or  another,  having  never  seen  this  list,  a  privilege 
which  he  had  a  right  to  demand,  but  which  he  never  appears 
to  have  claimed,  is  to  me  a  matter  of  surprise. 

"Q.  State  whether  the  book  containing  this  list  is  usually 
taken  to  the  place  where  the  election  of  wardens  and  vestry- 
men is  held  ?  A.  I  know  that  it  is  frequently,  if  not  uniformly, 
and  I  believe  that  it  is  open  to  the  inspection  of  any  persons 
present,  who  may  have  the  curiosity  to  examine  it." 

The  following  "  additional"  item  is  from  the  testimony  of  G. 
C.  Verplanck,  Esq.  (p.  90). : 

"  Q.  State  whether  there  is  any  order  of  the  Vestry  prohib- 
iting free  access  to  the  list  of  corporators  ?  A.  There  is  no 
order  to  that  effect ;  the  superior  officers  have  never  refused  to 
my  knowledge  any  one.  1  cannot  say  what  the  clerks  may 
have  done.  The  books  lie  in  places  open  all  day,  at  least,  and 
the  one  containing  the  pew-holder  corporators  is  in  the  outer 
office,  where  pew-rents  are  collected,  and  frequently  examined 
by  any  one  I  think  who  has  the  curiosity  The  book  contain- 
ing the  list  of  communicant  corporators  is  kept  in  an  inner 
office  on  an  open  desk  ;  I  never  knew  the  examination  of  it 
refused." 

We  find  the  following  declaration  of  Senatorial  reporting 
on  this  same  page  12  : 

"  No  contradiction  is  offered  to  the  statement  in  your  Com- 
mittee's Report  as  to  the  singular  pevv-leases  first  given  at  Trinity 


27 


Chapel.  The  explanation  is,  in  substance,  that  it  was  a  measure 
of  over  prudence,  adopted  in  order  to  prevent  the  intrusion  of 
pew-holders  who  "had  no  sympathy"  with  the  A^estry.  ^  he 
measure  was  condemned  at  the  time  by  some  of  I  he  Vestry 
themselves,  and  is  defended  now  by  none." 

These  are  Mr.  Verplanck's  words,  (p.  98)  : — 

"  The  motive  of  those,  however,  who  carried  it  through,  was 
that  of  the  precautionary  prudence  against  the  intrusion  of  a 
body  of  pew-holders  who  had  no  sympathies  with  us  or  any 
other  church.  It  was  recommended  by  a  committee  and 
approved  by  a  majority  of  the  Vestry.  It  was  repealed  before 
it  could  have  any  practical  effect." 

No  reference  is  here  made  to  "  sympathy  with  the  Vestry," 
but  to  those  whose  sympathies  were  of  a  secular  rather  than  an 
ecclesiastical  tendency  !  No  notice  is  taken  of  the  important 
fact  that  the  effect  of  the  erection  of  Trinity  Chapel  was  to 
increase  the  Church  accommodations  for  the  poor,  downtown. 
This  fact  is  thus  stated  by  Dr.  Haight,  p.  7  : — 

"The  arrangements  in  regard  to  the  pews  at  Trinity  Chapel, 
to  which  I  have  referred,  were  these  :  The  Vestr}"^  offered  to 
each  parly  holding  a  pew  in  either  of  their  three  down-town 
churches,  who  might  be  desirous  of  obtaining  a  pew  in  Trinity 
Chapel,  to  credit  him  with  the  amount  of  the  rent  of  his  pew 
down  town  on  condition  that,  while  he  occupies  the  pew  in 
Trinity  Chapel,  the  Vestry  sliould  be  entitled  to  the  use  of  the 
pew  down  town.  The  pews  which  thus  come  into  the  posses- 
sion of  the  Vestry  have  been  thrown  open  by  them  for  general 
use,  without  charge.  As  the  number  of  pews  of  this  class  is 
quite  large,  as  I  have  before  said,  Trinity  and  St.  Paul's  have 
become,  in  a  large  measure,  free  churches,  and  St.  John's 
measui'ably  so,  and  these  churches  are  of  such  a  character, 
architecturally  and  otherwise,  as  to  secure  the  attendance  of 
the  poor  to  a  much  greater  extent  than  has  been  found  practi- 
cable in  humbler  edifices." 

We  find  the  following  remarkable  statement  on  page  9  : — 

"In  the  Vestry  itself,  the  supposed  monopoly  of  knowledge 
and  power  by  the  Standing  Committee  is  declared  not  to  exist. 
The  Rector  testifies  that  the  reports  made  by  that  Committee 
are  overruled  by  the  Vestry,  'scores  of  times  ;'  or  as  Mr.  Ver- 
planck  more  quietly  expresses  it,  tins  reversal  takes  place 
sometimes  and  in  unimportant  matters.'" 


28 


The  word  ''unimportant,"  which  appeared  in  the  Report, 
as  printed  by  the  Committee,  is  said  to  be  a  clerical  mistake, 
but  even  this  correction  does  not  alter  the  tenor  or  drift  of  the 
sentence,  or  make  it  in  accordance  with  Mr.  Verplanck's  teriti- 
mony,  viz.  : 

"  Q.  What  do  you  say  as  to  the  alleged  control  of  the  Stand- 
ing Committee  ?  A.  On  some  subjects,  it  is  necessarily  great 
— as  to  the  valuation  of  property,  and  the  terms  on  which 
property  should  be  sold — they  being  familiar  from  long  and 
daily  experience  with  the  value  of  our  property  in  detail.  On 
other  points,  such  as  allowances  or  gilts  to  churches,  the  Ves- 
try form  their  own  judgment,  and  frequently  refer  matters 
back  to  them  for  re-consideration  ;  sometimes,  md  in  important 
matters,  rejecting  their  Eeport,  and  making  or  refusing  grants, 
in  opposition  to  their  recommendation.  A  case  in  point  has 
just  been  referred  to  in  this  examination.  It  is  that  of  the 
Church  known  as  St.  John  the  Baptist,  a  donation  to  which 
the  Standing  Committee  had  reported  against,  and  which,  after 
full  consideration  and  debate,  was  granted,  nearly  to  the 
amount  asked." 

The  Report,  after  alluding  in  a  very  disingenuous  style  (p. 
10)  to  the  vei-y  strong  declarations  of  Gen.  Dix,  the  Rector, 
and  various  other  witnesses,  in  relation  to  the  influence  of 
"  party  divisions"  in  affecting  the  appropriations  of  the  Vestry, 
thus  concludes  in  direct  opposition  to  the  evidence  (p.  11): 
"  Among  all  the  stipends  now  and  of  late  years  granted,  the 
only  one  that  is  stated  in  the  evidence,  to  be  given  to  a  'low' 
Church  clergyman,  amounts  to  f 300  a  year." 

Now,  Mr.  Verplanck,  against  whose  evidence  this  Commit- 
tee seem  to  have  some  special  spite,  had  merely  referred  to- 
the  following,  as  one  among  the  appropriations  to  institutions 
of  charity  (p.  95)  : 

"  Another  stipend  is  a  charity  rather  than  a  church  donation, 
to  a  minister,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cook,  the  German  missionary  at 
Ward's  Island  and  in  the  city  among  German  emigrants  ;  I 
think  the  allowance  is  $.300.  I  suppose  I  may  add,  as  there 
has  been  an  allusion  to  it  in  a  previous  question,  that  he  is  a 
'  low'  Churchman  ;  and  I  never  have  known  of  any  objec- 
tion being  made  to  the  motion  I  make  every  year  for  the  ap- 
propriation." 


29 


The  Committee,  in  saying  that  this  was  the  only  "  stipend" 
now  and  of  late  years  given  to  a  "  low"  Churchman,  had  forgot- 
ten the  following  testimony  of  Dr.  Haight: 

"  In  looking  over  the  list  of  parishes,  whose  churches  have 
been  mortgaged  to  Trinity  Church,  I  find  eight,  the  clergy  and 
lay  delegates  of  which,  for  a  series  of  years,  on  all  leading  ques- 
tions, spoke  and  voted  differently  from  the  Rector  and  lay  de- 
legates of  Trinity.  Two  of  these  are  mortgaged  for  $25,000, 
two  for  $20,000,  one  for  $5,000,  the  other  three  for  smaller 
sums.  So,  also,  in  regard  to  the  churches  which  have  received 
grants  of  land  and  money,  or  annual  stipends.  I  find  nearly 
thirty  which  have  taken  the  same  independent  course  in  Con- 
vention, without  regard  to  the  course  of  Trinity.  My  opinion 
of  the  clergy  and  laity  r)f  the  Diocese  of  New- York  is  such, 
that  I  do  not  think  it  would' be  practicable  for  any  Corporation 
to  buy  their  opinions  or  their  votes.  Of  the  churches  last  re- 
ferred to,  six  received  gifts  of  money  and  land,  and  twelve  re- 
ceived gifts  of  money  alone,  two  received  gifts  of  land  and  a 
stipend,  three  received  gifts  of  land  alone,  six  received  gifts 
of  stipend  alone.  My  knowledge  of  the  votes  of  the  lay  dele- 
gates and  clergy  of  the  several  parishes,  is  derived  from  the 
fact  that,  for  a  series  of  years  it  became  my  duly  at  every  Con- 
vention to  call  the  ayes  and  noes  on  very  many  questions  : 

And  then  in  their  remarks  upon  this  proportion  in  the  do- 
nations, they  seem  to  regard  the  Diocese  of  New- York  as 
equally  divided  between  the  "the  high"  and  "  the  low,"  and 
that  Trinity  only  doles  out  a  small  measure  of  her  bounty  among 
the  lower  half.  Whereas  the  proportion  of  her  gifts  bears  a  very 
fair  ratio  to  the  number  of  this  particular  class  in  the  Dio- 
cese. 

The  Report  states  (p.  14,)  that  they  do  not  understand  the 
Church  to  deny  the  gross  valuation  of  their  property,  at 
$6,487,050.  The  testimony  leaves  the  first  statement  made 
by  the  Vestry  unchanged  ! 

The  Report  declares,  (p.  17)  "  no  direct  attempt  is  made  to  dis- 
own or  disclaim  the  representations  urged  by  Col.  Troup,  in  or- 
der to  obtain  the  Law  of  1814."  We  have  already  quoted  the 
strong  disclaimer  of  Mr.  Ogden,  and  now  add  the  following  from 
Mr.  J.  R.  Livingston's  testimony,  (p.  129.) 


30 


"  Q.  Is  it  true,  as  stated  in  the  Eeport  of  the  Committee,  foot 
of  page  16,  that  Colonel  Troup's  pamphlet  was  an  inducement 
to  the  Legislature  to  pass  the  Act  of  1814  ?  A.  It  cannot  be 
true,  from  the  fact  that  the  act  was  passed  on  the  2d  of  April, 
1813,  and  the  pamphlet  bears  date  the  6th  of  September  fol- 
lowing. 

The  Report  says  (p.  18),  "Nor  does  there  appear  to  be  any 
manner  in  which  i-esponsibility  can  be  secured  ecclesiastically, 
any  more  than  civilly."  Here  is  Bishop  Potter's  testimony, 
(p.  23). 

"  Q.  Is  not  the  administration  of  this  fund  entirely  and 
absolutely  separate  from  all  the  religious  and  ecclesiastical 
care  of  the  Church,  as  a  religious  society  ?    A.  I  think  not. 

"  Q.  Wherein  does  she  exercise  .any  control  ?  A.  The  im- 
mediate disposal  of  this  fund  is  ordered  in  the  presence  of  and 
by  the  Rector,  Wardens  and  Vestrymen,  of  the  parish.  They 
are  both  immediately  responsible  to  me  as  the  bishop  of  the 
diocese,  and  are  amenable  to  the  Church  of  this  diocese  assem- 
bled in  Convention.  I  do  not  mean,  however,  to  be  understood 
that  I  supervise  the  details  of  appropriations,  or  that  my  assent 
is  essential  to  the  validity  of  any  grants  by  the  Vestry. 

The  Report  (p.  20),  pretends  to  derive  from  the  evidence 
the  followmg  arguments,  to  show  the  necessity  of  widening 
the  sphere  of  tlie  corporators,  so  as  to  include  among  them 
sufficient  wealth  and  intelligence  for  the  choice  of  Wardens  and 
Vestrymen  I 

"  Dr.  Haight  describes  the  congregation  at  Trinity  as  made 
up  of  strangers,  young  men,  transient  residents,  and  the  poor. 
Dr.  Vinton  testifies  that  the  congregation  at  St.  Paul's  is  com- 
posed mainly  of  strangers,  clerks,  mechanics,  artizans,  porters, 
washerwomen,  hucksters,  and  miscellaneous  poor,  making  their 
living  as  daily  laborers.  Dr.  Higbee  says  that  these  removals 
have  "gradually  and  surely  deprived  Trinity  and  St.  Paul's  of 
their  regular  congregations,  and  parochial  spirit,  responsibility, 
and  efficiency  ?"  and  that  they  "  diminish  and  weaken,  in  a  con- 
tinually increasing  ratio,  the  constituency  of  the  Corporation, 
thus  destroying  the  equilibrium  of  the  parish,  and  undermining 
its  foundations  as  an  institution  of  public  charity."  As  an  un- 
avoidable consequence  of  this  sweeping  change,  both  in  the 
number  and  the  character  of  the  corporators,  it  has  been  found 
impossible  to  "  keep  up  the  standing  of  the  constituency  ; '  and 
Dr.  Berrian  excuses  the  present  state  of  things  on  the  ground 
that  in  former  times  there  was  "  a  wider  range  than  now  for 


31 


the  choice  of  distinguished  and  intelligent  vestrymen,"  quali- 
fied to  administer  so  important  a  trust. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  the  testimony,  and  see  what  these  Rev- 
erend gentlemen  really  say,  for  we  have  learned  by  sad  ex- 
perience not  to  depend  on  the  quotations  of  the  Report ! 

Dr.  Haight  says  (p.  4.):  "The  congregation  at  Trinity 
Church  is  large,  and  composed  in  great  part  of  strangers,  tran- 
sient residents,  young  men,  clerks,  &c.,  and  the  poor,  upon 
none  of  whom  is  any  tax,  in  the  form  of  pew-rent  or  otherwise, 
laid  for  the  support  of  the  ministrations  of  the  Church." 

There  is  a  slight  difference  between  the  words  of  the  Report 
"made  up  of,"  and  the  language  of  the  evidence  "composed 
in -great  part  of!"'  There  are  a  few  more  left  of  the  old  sort, 
permanent  worshippers  in  Trinity  yet! 

Dr.  Vinton  says  (p.  60.)  :  "  At  St.  Paul's  Chapel,  the  only 
one  I  speak  of,  the  congregation  is  composed  of  three  classes  ; 
first,  the  old  families  retaining  their  seats  ;  second,  strangers 
from  the  hotels,  clerks,  and  sojourners  of  the  citj'-,  engaged,  for 
the  most  part,  in  mercantile  business  ;  third,  mechanics,  arti- 
zans,  porters,  washer-women,  hucksters,  and  miscellaneous 
poor,  who  obtain  their  living  by  daily  labor." 

The  Report  omits  as  unimportant  "  the  old  families  retaining 
their  seats,"  some  of  whom  are  not  quite  beneath  the  notice 
even  of  State  Senators. 

Dr.  Berrian  and  Dr.  Higbee  were  both  speaking  of  the  past, 
not  the  present  state  of  things.  But  surely  a  Senatorial  Com- 
mittee can  change  tenses  as  well  as  laws ! 

We  might  further  show  many  errors  of  omission  and  com- 
mission, such  as  any  reference  to  the  fact  that  three  of  the 
Clergy,  and  one  of  the  V^estry,  had  corrected  the  wrong  im- 
pression given  to  their  evidence  ;  the  blank  silence,  or  even 
more  questionable  utterances  of  the  Report  as  to  the  gifis, 
endowments,  charities,  provisions,  for  free  churches,  for  mission- 
aries, for  "its  own"  and  other  poor,  &c.  But  the  whole  Re- 
port and  Testimony  must  be  read,  to  show  how  strongly  the 
main  drift  of  the  former  runs  against  the  current  of  the  latter. 
The  Committee,  however,  may  find  themselves  mistaken  in 
their  estimate  of  the  popular  tide  ! 


32 


But,  really,  we  have  followed  these  vestiges  of  Senatorial 
creation  far  enough,  perhaps  beyond  our  reader's  patience, 
to  show  the  beautiful  concord  between  the  Testimony  and  the 
Report  !  The  Committee  have  used  their  Senatorial  powers 
to  grant  these  a  divorce,  and  as  the  parties  can  never  agree, 
we  had  better  allow  them  to  remain  separate.  Perhaps,  we 
should  rather  say,  as  a  Select  Committee,  they  have  used  their 
appropriate  powers  in  selecting  approved  extracts  from  the 
testimony.  Still  this  does  not  account  for  the  omission  of 
those  parts  which  bear  most  strongly  upon  the  great  questions 
at  issue.  It  may  be  that  they  believe  in  a  Church  without  a 
Bishop  !  Thus  only  can  we  account  for  their  omission,  among 
many  other  important  points,  of  the  solemn  testimony  of 
Bishop  Potter  and  Bishop  Delancey,  as  to  the  fraud  which 
would  be  committed,  and  the  evils  which  would  arise  from 
the  repeal  of  a  law,  which  by  the  limitation  of  time,  has  be- 
come "  a  statute  of  repose." 

We  venture  the  supposition,  we  "  Imovj  nothing,"  that  the 
members  of  tliis  venerable  Committee  are  citizens  of  some 
larger  town,  perhaps  of  our  metropolis.  There  is  a  dryness 
and  a  hardness  in  their  Report,  which  speak  nothing  of  the 
verdure  and  the  freshness  of  rural  scenes.  Thus  only  can  we 
account  for  the  fact,  that  our  country  friends  are  not  warned  of 
the  dangers  and  the  evils  which  this  proposed  measure  will 
bring  upon  them.  They  must  be  as  green  and  verdant  as  their 
own  beautiful  meadows,  if  they  do  not  see  this.  The  bounty 
which  has  flowed  to  them,  in  gentle  rivulets  and  quiet  streams, 
our  rapacious  and  greedy  citizens  are  seeking  to  dam  up  and 
bring  into  a  general  reservoir  for  city  use.  The  country  may 
only  become  awake  to  this  fact,  when  they  see  their  Croton 
distributed  in  the  pipes  and  bath-tubs  of  New-York.  Then, 
woe  to  the  politicians,  and  the  political  party,  by  whose  aid  this 
result  has  been  accomplished !  They  will  know  the  palsy 
which,  by  an  eternal  ordinance,  will  ever  blight  the  hand  dar- 
ing to  touch  that  which  has  been  consecrated  to  the  Most 
High. 

Lest  some  may  think  that  a  fervid  imagination  is  trying  to  ex- 
cite them  by  its  own  dreams,  we  add  the  sober  testimony  given 


33 


under  the  solemnity  ol  an  oath,  by  Bishop  Delancey  of  the 
Western  Diocese  of  New-York. 

"The  repeal  of  the  law  would  be  disastrous  to  the  whole 
Church  of  the  State,  outside  the  city.  1.  By  raising  the  ques- 
tion, as  to  the  right  of  dispersing  any  of  this  property  out  of 
the  city,  which  is  denied  by  some,  but  which,  the  present  Cor- 
poration has  admitted,  and  has  temporarily  acted  on.  2.  By 
leading,  almost  necessarily,  to  the  division  of  all  the  property 
among  the  city  churches.  3.  By  thus  cutting  off  allthelceble 
country  churches  from  the  benefit  of  this  favor.  4.  By  stop- 
ping what  has  been  a  stream  of  most  salutary  and  fertilizing 
benevolence  to  religious,  charitable,  or  educational  institutions 
in  the  rural  districts." 

We  impeach  no  man's  motives,  but  we  speak  our  honest 
convictions,  when  we  say  that  an  attempt  to  slop,  or  to  direct 
the  present  quiet  and  beneficent  flow  of  the  bounty  from  Trin- 
ity Church,  is  the  act  of  no  friend  to  the  best  interests  of  the 
Church  or  of  the  State.  Who  are  they  that  are  clamoring  for 
this  change  ?  Are  they  the  poor,  or  the  needy,  whose  calls 
have  been  despised  or  neglected  ?  The  leaders  in  this  move- 
ment are  rich  men  and  rich  congregations,  many  of  whom  have 
already  had  their  full  share  of  property,  which  has  ever  been 
used,  according  to  the  best  intentions,  if  not  tlie  wisest,  for  the 
glory  of  God  and  the  good  of  man. 

Oar  humble  voice  may  never  reach  the  ears  of  a  single  Le- 
gislator. If  it  does  reach  them,  we  say,  pause,  deliberate  well, 
before  you  disturb  that  which  has  long  reposed  in  the  rest  of 
the  eternal  shelter  which  Law  should  throw  around  Right. 
Enough  already  are  the  disturbing  elements  in  the  political 
atmosphere.  Add  not  to  the  agitations  of  the  State  the  ele- 
ments of  deeper  excitement.  Let  the  Church  and  her  pro- 
perty alone.  The  State  has  enough  to  do  in  taking  care  of  it- 
self 


THE  TITLE,  PARISH  RIGHTS 

AND 
OF 

TRINITY  CHURCH,  NEW  YORK, 

FEOM  THE  APPEirorX  TO 

33isl)op  JDc  Cancel's  2[u)entktl)  ^onocntional  ^iibress, 

DELIVERED  IN 

Oswego,  August  1  9,   1  857. 


UTICA,  N.  Y. 
CURTISS  &  WHITE,  PRDfEERS,  171  GENESEE  STREET. 
185V. 


♦ 


I  was  summoned  to  Albany,  on  the  13th  of  February,  on  a  requisition  of  a 
Committee  of  the  Senate,  in  relation  to  the  afifairs  of  Trinity  Church,  New 
York,  arraigned  before  the  Legislature  and  threatened  with  an  invasion  of  her 
constitutional  rights  in  the  control  of  her  property. 

As  this  venerable  Corporation  has  been  often  assailed,  and  as  she  has  applied 
her  funds  in  this  Diocese,  as  well  as  throughout  the  State,  most  advantageously 
to  the  interests  of  religion  and  education,  and  must  depend  upon  the  intelli- 
gence, integrity,  knowledge  and  just  appreciation  of  legal  and  constitutional 
rights  of  the  whole  State,  for  her  preservation  from  the  inroads  of  injustice,  rapa- 
city and  party,  it  may  be  well  to  put  on  record,  in  a  note  to  this  Address,  for 
information,  a  condensed  view  of  the  groundless  character  of  the  assaults  hith- 
erto made  upon  her  Title,  her  Parish  Character,  and  her  use  of  her  Property. 
[Bishop  De  Lancey's  Conventional  Address,  Aug.  19,  1857.] 


TRINITY  CHURCH,  NEW  YORK. 


This  venerable  Corporation  has  been  assailed  on  three  grounds : 

I.   Her  title ; 
II.    The  Act  of  1814; 
m.    The  value  and  distribution  of  her  funds. 

I.    HER.  TITLE. 

Her  TmE  has  been  assailed — 

1.  By  the  heirs  of  Anneke  Jans ; 

2.  By  the  alleged  claim  of  the  State. 

ANNEKE  JANS. 

1.  Against  the  heirs  of  Anneke  Jans  there  have  been  decisions,  by 
successive  Courts,  both  before  and  since  the  Revolution  of  17 76,  and 
always  in  favor  of  Trinity  Church. 

Anneke  Jans  was  the  alleged  original  Dutch  Patentee,  under  the 
States  of  Holland,  of  part  of  this  property.  She  married  one  Bogar- 
dus,  a  Dutch  Clergyman,  hence  called  Domine  Bogardus.  Under  her, 
the  claim  was  set  up  :  and  her  heirs,  inmmierable,  have  since  prosecuted 
it.  This  Anneke  Jans'  claim  to  the  property  of  Trinity  Church  was 
founded  on  these  allegations  : 

1.  That  the  title  was  not  in  the  Queen  when,  in  1705,  she  gave  the 
lands  to  Trinity  Church,  but  in  a  private  person. 

2.  That  the  lands  had  been  granted  in  the  time  of  the  Dutch  to 
Anneke  Jans,  the  original  Patentee. 

3.  That  all  titles  granted  by  the  Dutch  were  confirmed  to  the 
grantees  by  the  Articles  of  Capitulation,  when  the  Colony  surrendered 
to  the  English. 

4.  That  Cornelius  Brouwer,  a  decendant  of  the  original  grantee, 
was  one  of  the  true  heirs  and  owners  of  the  property. 


4 


TRINITY  OHTJKOH  PROPERTY. 


FIRST  SUIT. 

1.  This  Cornelius  Brouwer  commenced  an  ejectment  suit  against  Trin- 
ity Church  in  1 750,  after  she  had  possessed  the  property  about  forty-five 
years  ;  and  was  non-suited  for  not  bringing  cause  to  trial.  He  subse- 
quently commenced  another  suit,  which,  in  1760,  was  tried  before  a 
special  jury,  struck  for  the  purpose,  in  the  presence  of  the  parties  and 
their  cou^isel,  before  one  of  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  David 
Jones,  Esq.,  of  Fort  Neck,  Queens  county,  who  was  commissioned  for 
the  trial  of  this  very  cause — all  the  other  Judges  being  members  of 
Trinity  Church  and  interested  in  the  result  of  the  suit.  The  jury  con- 
sisted of  persons  of  credit,  principally  belonging  to  the  Church  of 
Holland.  The  attorney  and  counsel  for  Cornelius  Brouwer  against 
Trinity  Church  were  the  leading  Presbyterian  members  of  the  bar,  viz : 
William  Smith,  Sen.,  William  Smith,  Jr.,  William  Livingston  and  John 
Morine  Scott. 

The  trial  lasted  two  days  and  almost  two  nights.  The  titles  on 
both  sides  were  fully  canvassed ;  and  the  jury,  after  a  charge  by  the 
Judge,  and  a  recess  of  half  an  hour,  returned  with  a  verdict  in  favor 
of  Trinity  Church. 

Such  was  the  result  of  the  first  trial. 

2.  Col.  Malcolm  commenced  a  suit  by  writ  of  right  in  the  Supreme 
Court,  to  recover  the  property  of  Trinity  Church,  or  some  of  it.  The 
premises,  the  title  to  which  was  not  immediately  in  question,  were 
located  in  or  near  Chambers  street.  The  grounds  of  his  claim  are  not 
exactly  known  to  me,  but  it  is  believed  to  have  been  in  some  way  con- 
nected with  the  Bogardus  pretensions,  probably  as  an  assign  of  one  or 
more  of  the  soi-disant  heirs.  The  cause  was  tried  in  the  year  1807, 
in  the  old  City  Hall,  in  New  York,  by  grand  assize,*  (an  ancient  and 
solemn  mode  of  jury  trial  now  disused  in  this  State,)  and  a  verdict 
was  found  and  judgment  entered  for  Trinity  Church. 

3.  Previous  to  1830,  one  Bogardus,  claiming  to  be  an  heir  of  Anneke 
Jans,  commenced  proceedings  in  the  Court  of  Chancery  against  Trinity 
Church,  to  recover  a  part  of  the  Queen's  Farm. 

The  case  was  elaborately  argued,  and  decided  in  favor  of  Trinity 
Church,  by  the  late  Chancellor,  R.  H.  Walworth.  (See  4th  Paige's 
Reports,  178.)  It  was  carried,  by  appeal,  to  the  Court  for  the  Cor- 
rection of  Errors,  where  the  decision  of  the  Chancellor  was  aiBrmed. 


*  Black.  Coim.  Vol.  2,  pp.  190,  341,  and  Appendix  p.  vi,  Ed.  by  Christian. 


THE  AiraEKE  JANS'  CLAIM. 


5 


4.  Another  suit  was  commenced  in  1834,  by  one  Jonas  Hiunbert,  also 
claiming  as  an  heir  of  Anneke  Jans.  Tlie  complainant's  bill  was  de- 
murred to,  and  the  demurrer  was  sustained  by  the  Chancellor,  and  the 
bill  was  dismissed.  (See  7th  Paige's  Reports,  page  195.)  This,  also, 
was  carried,  by  appeal,  to  the  Court  for  the  Correction  of  Errors,  and 
the  decision  of  the  Chancellor  was  sustained  by  the  unanimous  vote  of 
the  members  of  the  Court.    (See  24th  Wendell's  Reports,  p.  587.) 

An  issue  of  fact  was  afterwards  made,  in  the  Bogardus  suit  above 
mentioned,  which  was  decided  against  the  complainant  by  the  late  Vice 
Chancellor  Sanford,  upon  full  and  complete  testimony  on  the  part  of 
Trinity  Church,  and  no  appeal  was  taken  from  the  decision.  (See  4th 
Sanford's  Chancery  Reports,  p.  633  ;  Id.  p.  369.) 

5.  Nine  other  suits  were  brought  in  the  Supreme  Court  by  another 
Cornelius  Brouwer,  in  1847,  claiming  as  an  heir  of  Anneke  Jans  ;  and, 
after  the  causes  were  at  issue,  the  plaintiff  submitted  to  a  nonsuit. 

6.  In  July,  1851,  an  action  was  commenced  against  Trinity  Church  by 
the  same  counsel  in  the  name  of  one  Kiersted,  in  the  Court  of  Com- 
mon Pleas,  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

7.  And  in  April,  1852,  another  action  was  brought  by  the  same  coun- 
sel, in  the  name  of  the  same  Kiersted,  in  the  Supreme  Court,  while  the 
action  in  Common  Pleas  was  pending. 

The  plaintiff,  Kiersted,  was  compelled  to  elect  between  his  actions, 
and  he  abandoned  that  in  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas. 

The  case  was  heard  in  November,  1854,  and  decided  on  the  9th  of 
April,  1855.    The  bill  was  dismissed  with  costs. 

All  these  suits,  except  those  of  Brouwer  and  Humbert,  were  com- 
menced and  conducted  by  the  same  counsel,  George  Sullivan,  Esq., 
who,  for  twenty-two  years,  had  maintained  the  litigation  against  Trinity 
Church,  in  the  name  of  Mr.  Kiersted  or  others. 

Vice  Chancellor  Sandford,  in  deciding  in  favor  of  Trinity  Church, 

thus  expresses  his  views  : 

"  And  now  that  I  have  been  enabled  to  examine  it  (the  ease)  carefuUy  and 
with  due  reflection,  I  feel  bound  to  say,  that  a  plainer  case  has  never  been  pre- 
sented to  me  as  Judge.  Were  it  not  for  the  uncommon  magnitude  of  the  claim, 
the  apparent  sincerity  and  zeal  of  the  counsel  who  supported  it,  and  the  fact 
(of  which  I  have  been  often  admonished  by  personal  application  in  their  behalf,) 
that  the  descendants  of  Anneke  Jans  at  this  day  are  hundreds,  if  not  thousands, 
in  number,  I  should  not  have  deemed  it  necessary  to  deliver  a  written  judg- 
ment on  deciding  the  cause."* 

♦Opinion, p.  40. 


6 


TEINITY  CHUECH  PEOPEKTY. 


THE  STATE  CLAIM. 

2.  In  1854,  Mr.  Rutger  B.  Miller  memoralized  the  Commissioners 
of  the  Land  Office,  alleging  that  he  and  his  associates  were  in  posses- 
sion of  evidence,  showing  that  the  title  to  the  property  called  the 
King's  Farm,  or  Queen's  Farm,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  held  by  Trin- 
ity Church,  having  been  Crown  lands,  and  never  legally  alienated  to 
Trinity  Church,  was  vested  in  the  people  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
and  offering  to  carry  on  a  suit  of  ejectment  against  Trinity  Church  at 
his  own  expense,  and  recover  the  property  escheated  to  the  State,  pro- 
vided that  one-quarter  of  the  estate  so  recovered  be  given  to  him. 

An  agreement  was  made  with  Mr.  Miller,  by  the  Commissioners  of 
the  Land  Office,  by  resolutions,  passed  June  10,  1854,  and  August  31, 
1854,  directing  the  Attorney  General  to  commence  such  a  suit,  on  the 
conditions — 

1.  That  the  State  should  be  indemnified  against  incurring  any  ex- 
pense by  the  suit,  by  a  bond  of  indemnity  of  $5000,  with  surety  to  be 
approved  by  the  Comptroller. 

2.  Provided  that  proper  evidence,  showing  the  title  of  the  State  to 
such  farm,  should  be  first  shown,  and  lodged  with  the  Attorney  General 
of  the  State. 

On  the  22d  January,  1855,  the  Attorney  General  reports  to  the 
Senate,  that  Mr.  Miller  had  not  fulfilled  the  conditions,  and  that  no  suit 
had  been  commenced. 

Subsequently,  it  appears  that  Mr.  Miller  did  comply  with  some  or 
one  of  the  conditions,  gave  the  bond  with  securities,  and  submitted  his 
evidence  of  the  title  of  the  State  to  this  property  to  the  Attorney 
General,  and  through  him  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land  Office, 
who  adopted,  March  2, 1855,  the  following  preamble  and  resolution,  viz : 

"  Whereas,  The  Attorney  General  having  submitted  to  this  Board  the  testimo- 
ny in  regard  to  the  title  of  Trinity  Church  to  the  King's  Farm,  which  was  fur- 
nished to  him  by  Rutger  B.  MUler,  and  the  same  being  unsatisfactory, 

"Resolved,  That  the  Resolution  of  June  10, 1854,  directing  the  commencement 
of  a  suit,  and  that  of  August  31,  1854,  in  relation  to  the  Board,  be,  and  the 
same  are  hereby  rescinded." 

Sometime  afterwards,  in  1855,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land 
Office,  on  the  urgent  application  of  Mr.  Rutger  B.  Miller,  renewed  the 
authority  and  instructions  to  the  Attorney  General,  to  commence  a 
suit  to  test  the  title  of  Trinity  Church,  on  the  terms  proposed  by  Mr. 
Miller.    In  January,  1856,  Trinity  Church  presented  a  memorial  to 


THE  STATE  CLAIM. 


1 


the  New  Commissioners  of  the  Land  OfiSce,  declaring  that  they  do 
not,  in  any  way,  object  to  a  suit  against  them  to  test  their  title,  but 
praying  that  the  bargain  to  give  Mr.  Miller  a  portion  of  the  land,  if 
recovered  to  the  State,  may  be  annulled,  as  being,  amongst  other 
things,  contrary  to  the  Constitution,  which  appropriates  all  escheated 
lands  to  the  Common  School  Fund,  and  thus  prohibits  such  payment  to 
Mr.  Miller. 

The  bargain,  being  deemed  unconstitutional,  was  abandoned. 

But  the  Attorney  General  was  directed  to  bring  a  suit  before  the 
Supreme  Court,  to  test  the  title  of  Trinity  Church  to  her  property. 
Accordingly  an  action  has  been  brought  in  the  name  of  the  People, 
and  is  now  at  issue  and  will  soon  be  decided. 

On  the  point  of  the  claim  of  the  State  to  the  property  of  Trinity 
Church,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land  Office,  in  1836,  consisting  of 
Messrs.  Samuel  Beardsley,  John  A.  Dix,  A.  C.  Flagg,  A.  Keyser  and 
William  Campbell,  put  their  names  to  the  following  opinion,  and 
establish  the  following  facts : 

OPINION. 

1.  That  the  Rector,  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church  in 
the  city  of  Kew  York,  are  a  valid  corporation,  with  full  power  to  hold  the 
real  estate  which  has  been  referred  to. 

2.  That  it  has  a  valid,  subsisting,  and  absolute  ^itle  to  the  lands  referred  to. 

3.  That  it  is  entitled  to  the  rents  and  profits  of  said  lands,  without  any 
regard  to  the  amount  of  income  which  they  may  yield. 

FACTS. 

They  establish  the  following  facts : 

1.  That  in  1705,  Lord  Combury,  Governor  of  the  Province  of  New  York, 
in  the  name,  and  as  the  act  and  deed  of  Queen  Anne,  made  a  lease,  by  which 
the  lands  called  the  Queen's  Farm  and  the  Queen's  Garden  were  granted  and 
confirmed  to  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  and  their  successors  forever,  to 
be  holden  in  free  and  common  socage  paying  the  yearly  rent  of  three  shillings. 

2.  That  the  power  of  the  Provincial  Governor  to  make  leases  of  the  Crown 
Lands,  was  unlimited  in  1705,  when  the  lease  in  question  was  made. 

3.  That  the  lease  was  valid  and  effectual  in  its  inception,  and  was  so  re- 
garded during  the  continuance  of  the  Provincial  Government. 

4.  That  the  lease  of  1705,  had  been  regarded  as  a  subsisting  and  valid 
grant,  not  only  by  the  Provincial  Government,  to  as  late  a  period  as  1750,  when 
quit  rent  was  paid  upon  it,  but  by  the  Government  of  this  State  in  1786,  when 
tiie  quit  rent  reserved  was  finally  commuted  and  satisfied. 

5.  That  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  has  held  these  lands,  claiming  an 
absolate  and  indefeasible  title  to  them  from  the  time  of  the  commutation  and 


8 


TEtNITY  CHtTECH  PEOPEETY. 


paymentof  said  quit  rent  in  1786,  (then,  in  fifty  years,  and  now,  in  1857, 
seventy-one  years.) 

6.  That  if  the  people  of  the  State  had  then,  in  1786,  a  right  to  these  lands, 
that  right  has  been  lost  by  lapse  of  time,  the  right  of  suing  for  the  recovery  of 
lands  being  limited  to  forty  years  in  this  State,  and  in  England  and  Provinces 
to  sixty  years. 

7.  And  that  the  Legislature  of  the  State  have  repeatedly  recognized  the 
corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  as  a  legal,  valid  and  subsisting  coi-poration.* 

It  is  understood  that  the  question  of  the  title  of  the  State  to  this 
property,  will  be  settled  at  an  early  date,  the  cause  in  which  it  is 
involved  having  a  preference  over  others. 

II.     THE  ACT    Oin  1814. 

Another  ground  of  assault  upon  Trinity  Church  is  the  Act  of  1814. 

Certain  persons,  who  are  members  of  the  various  incorporated  Epis- 
copal Churches  in  the  city  of  New  York,  about  fifty  in  number,  claim 
also  to  be  corporators  of  Trinity  Church  in  that  city,  and  to  be  entitled 
not  only  to  choose  officers  and  control  the  affairs  of  their  own  Churches, 
hut  to  manage  the  affairs  of  Trinity  Church,  by  participating  in  the 
election  of  its  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen.  And  they  complain 
that  by  an  Act  of  the  Legislature,  passed  in  1814,  their  rights,  as  cor- 
porators of  Trinity  Church,  have  been  impaired,  and  they  ask  and  urge 
a  repeal  of  the  Act  of  1814,  as  being  in  violation  of  their  rights,  after 
haviruj  submitted  to  it,  vidthout  ever  ajjpealing  to  the  courts  of  law  to 
test  its  constitutionality, /or  fm-ty-three  years. 

The  claim  is  that  members  of  other  incorporated  Episcopal  Churches 
in  the  city  of  New  York  are  also  corporators  of  Trinity  Church,  and 
as  such  are  entitled  to  vote  at  its  elections. 

The  following  facts  and  views  present  the  subject : 

In  1790,  Trinity  Church,  with  her  two  Chapels  of  St.  Paid's  and  St. 
George's  was  the  only  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  city,  and 
comprehended  within  her  limits  all  the  Episcopalians.  There  was  but 
one  Parish — the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church. 

In  1793,  Christ  Church  was  organized  by  persons  who  were  formerly 
members  of  Trinity  Church,  but  who  separated  voluntarily  from  it, 
erected  a  house  of  public  worship,  and  applied  to  have  their  delegates 
admitted  to  a  seat  in  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  in  October  of  that 

*  Chief  Justice  Bronson,  who  had  just  vacated  the  office  of  Attorney  General, 
and  as  such  had  ofHcially  and  fully  considered  the  subject,  is  known  to  have 
been  of  the  same  opinion  as  his  successor,  Mr.  Beardsley. 


THE  ACT  OF  1814. 


9 


year.  They  were  incorporated  by  a  special  act,  They  were  admitted 
into  the  Convention  in  1802. 

In  1801,  St.  Mark's  Church  was  organized  and  incorporated  by  a 
special  act. 

In  1804,  the  French  Church,  Du  Su.  Esprit,  became  connected  with 
the  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

In  1806,  St.  Stephen's  Church  was  organized  and  incorporated  by  a 
special  act. 

In  1807,  St.  Michael's  Church,  Bloomingdale,  was  organized  and  in- 
corporated by  a  special  act. 

In  1809,  Grace  Church  was  organized  and  incorporated  under  a 
special  act. 

In  1810,  Zion  Church  and  St.  James'  Chm'ch  were  organized  and 
incorporated  under  special  acts. 

The  above  dates  are  derived  from  the  Journals  of  Convention,  and 
are  thought  to  be  correct. 

In  1813,  St.  George's  Chapel  was  separated  from  Trinity  Church, 
and  became  a  separate,  independent  Parish. 

In  this  year,  1813,  the  General  Law  for  the  incorporation  of  Relig- 
ious Societies  was  passed  by  the  Legislature,  covering  the  case  of 
Church  organizations  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

To  this  date,  1813,  none  of  the  corporators  of  these  nine  distinct, 
separate,  independent,  incorporated  Parishes,  extending  through  a 
period  of  twenty  years,  had  ever  exercised,  or  legally  claimed  the  right 
of  voting  at  the  elections  of  Wardens  and  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church. 
Nor  had  the  corporators  of  Trinity  Church,  as  such,  claimed  the  right 
of  voting  for  Wardens  and  Vestr}'men  in  these  newly  organized  and  in- 
dependent congregations. 

At  the  period  when  what  is  called  the  Jones  and  Hobart  controversy 
prevailed,  and  divided  the  Churchmen  in  all  the  Churches  in  the  city 
into  parties,  it  was,  that  the  pretension  was  urged  that  the  corpo- 
rators of  these  several  new  Parishes  were  also  still  corporators  of 
Trinity  Church,  and  as  such,  had  a  right  to  vote  for  Wardens  and 
Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  of  which  both  Hobart  and  Jones  were 
Ministers. 

In  this  year,  1313,  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  applied  to  the 
B 


10 


TKINrrY  CmiKCH  peopeett. 


Legislature  for  the  law  which  was  passed  by  the  Legislature  in  that 
year,  and  submitted  to  the  Council  of  Revision,  who  were  divided  on 
the  point,  and  after  satisfaction  given  to  Chancellor  Lansing,  who 
doubted  on  some  of  its  provisions,  there  was  no  majority  against  it, 
the  Council  being  equally  divided,  and  it  became  a  law  in  1S14  ;  and 
hence  called  the  Act  of  1814 ;  rendered  necessary  by  the  organization 
of  the  new  Parishes  above  named,  the  separation  of  St.  George's 
from  Trinity,  and  the  pretension  of  some  individuals  of  the  new 
Churches  to  a  right  to  vote  at  the  Vestry  elections  in  Trinity  Parish. 
The  Act  was  passed  on  the  application  of  Trinity  Church,  with  full 
notice  and  knowledge  of  all  parties  concerned,  as  appears  from  cotem- 
porary  documents  and  pamphlets.  The  assent  of  both  parties,  the 
Legislature  and  Trinity  Church,  to  the  modification  of  the  contract, 
or  charter,  having  been  given,  there  is  no  foundation  for  the  allegation 
that  that  Act  impaired  the  obligation  of  a  contract  or  was  unconstitu- 
tional. 

The  then  Attorney  General*  of  the  State  gave  a  formal  opinion  at 
the  time  that  the  Act  was  not  imconstitutional.  The  constitutionality 
of  the  Act  of  1814  has  been  admitted,  theoretically  and  practically, 
by  such  Lawyers  as  Richard  Harison,  Peter  Augustus  Jay,  Thomas  L. 
Ogden,  William  Johnson,  John  T.  Irving,  David  B.  Ogden,  Alexander 
Macdonald,  Gulian  C.  Verplanck  and  John  A.  Dix  and  others,  who  have, 
since  that  date,  served  in  the  Vestry  of  the  Church. 

The  Act  has  been  vindicated  as  constitutional  by  the  late  John  C. 
Spencer. 

No  appeal  to  a  legal  tribunal,  always  easily  accessible,  has  ever 
been  made  by  any  party,  individual  or  congregation,  supposed  to  be 
aggrieved,  to  test  the  constitutionality  of  the  Act,  which  has  been  in 
operation  forty-three  years. 

The  following  propositions  are  believed  to  be  sustained  by  all  the 
facts  in  the  case,  and  to  embody  the  whole  truth  on  this  subject : 

1.  That  the  qualifications  for  voters  for  officers  of  Trinity  Church, 
prior  to  the  Act  of  1814,  were  prescribed  by,  and  are  to  be  found  in, 
the  original  Charter  of  1697,  and  the  Act  of  1784. 

2.  That  those  qualifications  are  not  varied  by  the  Act  of  1814,  any 
further  than  they  had  already  become  modified  by  our  Independence, 
and  the  adoption  of  our  State  Constitution,  which  abolished  the  legal 

*  Abram  Van  Vechten. 


THE  ACT  OF  1814. 


11 


establishment  of  any  religious  denomination  in  connection  with  the 
State,  and  all  laws,  claims  and  qualifications  growing  out  of  such 
establishment. 

3.  That  for  the  purpose  of  declaring  the  consequence  of  this 
change  of  circumstances,  and  for  providing  for  carrying  into  effect  the 
original  intent  of  the  Charter,  the  Legislature,  acting  with  the  consent 
of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  had  unquestionable  authority  to 
pass  the  Act  of  1814. 

4.  If  that  Act  had  never  passed,  the  members  of  other  incorporated 
Episcopal  Churches  in  the  city  of  New  York,  could  not  vote  for  oflScers 
of  Trinity  Church,  because  1st.  They  do  not  possess  the  qualifications 
required  by  the  Charter  of  1697,  and  the  Act  of  1*784;  and  2d.  Be- 
cause if  they  ever  had  any  rights  as  corporators  of  Trinity  Church, 
they  have  renounced  all  claims  to  them,  and  have  disfranchised  them- 
selves. They  could  derive,  therefore,  no  benefit  from  the  modification 
or  repeal  of  the  second  section  of  the  Act  of  1814. 

5.  The  Act  of  1814,  having  been  acquiesced  in  for  more  than  forty 
three  years,  by  those,  if  there  were  any,  whose  rights  were  aff'ected, 
such  fact  affords  a  just  presumption  that  they  concurred  in  its  provisions. 

6.  That  it  would  be  highly  injurious  to  repeal  or  alter  the  third 
section  of  the  Act  of  1814,  as  it  would  open  sources  of  dispute,  which 
have  been  happily  and  properly  closed,  and  would  stimulate  litigation 
by  the  appearance  of  a  legislative  decision  upon  the  validity  of  the 
law  in  question. 

7.  That  if  the  Act  of  1814  was  constitutionally  passed,  it  is  not 
competent  to  the  Legislature  to  repeal  or  alter  it,  without  the  consent 
of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church. 

8.  That  if  applicants  for  its  repeal  have  any  wrongs  to  redress, 
the  same  Courts  are  open  to  them  to  which  all  other  citizens  are  re- 
quired to  appeal,  and  there  are  no  obstructions  or  difficulties  in  their 
access  to  those  Courts. 

9.  And  that  the  merits  of  the  whole  matter  may  be  summed  up 
in  these  few  words : 

If  the  Act  of  1814  is  unconstitutional  and  void,  the  Courts  will  so 
declare,  upon  the  question  being  presented  to  them,  and  there  is,  there- 
fore, no  occasion  for  the  Legislature  to  interfere  in  what  are  peculiarly 
matters  of  judicial  cognizance. 


12 


TEnnry  chttrch  property. 


If  the  Act  of  1814  is  constitutional  and  valid,  then  there  cannot  be 
any  legislative  action  upon  it,  unsolicited  by  Trinity  Church  and  con- 
trary to  her  will,  without  an  infraction  of  her  Charter,  and  an  obvious 
violation  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land. 

III.    THE  PROPERTY. 

The  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  has  been  assailed  in  regard  to 
the  reported  value  and  the  use  of  her  property. 

In  reporting  to  the  Senate,  as  directed  by  a  resolution  of  that  body, 
the  Vestry  declare, 

"  Tliaf.  tUey  furnish  the  information  requested  by  the  Senate,  not  as  acknowl- 
edging the  power  of  the  Senate  to  exact  such  information,  but  in  ordei  Uiat 
they  may  not  be  deemed  to  be  wanting  in  respect  for  your  honorable  body,  or 
unwilling  to  display  to  the  public  the  state  of  this  corporation,  its  financial 
condition,  and  the  management,  by  this  Vestry,  of  its  property.  They  feel 
satisfied  that  the  facts  presented  in  this  paper  will  i-emovo  any  unfavorable 
impressions  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  Trinity  Church,  which  inav  have 
been  occasioned  by  representations  which,  it  is  conjectured,  have  induced  your 
honorable  body  to  pass  the  resolutions  above  contained.  But  being  charged 
with  the  care  and  guardianship  of  a  large  property  and  important  rights,  they 
beg  leave,  respectfully,  to  represent  that  the  requiring  of  such  reports  as  that 
asked  for,  by  the  resolutions  of  the  honorable  Senate,  is  not  justi.'ied  by  anv 
legal  principle,  and  is  oppressive  of  this  corporation.  If  there  should,  at  any 
time,  be  any  just  cause  of  complaint  against  this  corporation,  the  courts  are 
open  and  are  adequate  to  afford  a  remedy  ;  and  the  entering,  by  the  Legisla- 
ture, upon  an  investigation  into  the  affairs  of  any  single  corporation,  which 
investigation,  if  it  has  any  materiality,  properly  belongs  to  such  courts,  is  an 
assumption  of  their  powers,  and  is  burdensome  upon  the  corporation  affected, 
by  calling  upon  it  to  jvistify  itself,  by  laborious  statements,  or  production  of 
evidence  to  a  tribuu.il  whicli  has  no  power  to  decide.  This  corporation  has, 
within  a  few  years  past,  made  answer  to  two  similar  calls  for  information  fi'om 
the  houses  of  the  Legislature,  the  one  contained  in  the  resolutions  of  your 
honori-.ble  body,  of  the  9th  day  of  March,  1846,  and  the  other  contained  hi  the 
resolutions  of  the  honorable  the  House  of  Assembly,  of  March  4th,  1854. 
There  is  no  provision  in  the  charter  of  this  corporation,  and  no  general  statute 
requiring  it  to  report  to  the  Legislature,  and  because  this  Vestry  have  found 
the  answer  to  these  repeated  requirements  expensive  and  onerous,  and  l.ielicve 
them  to  be  an  infringement  of  the  chartered  rights  of  Trinity  Church,  they 
humbly  protest  against  the  right  of  the  Legislature,  or  either  branch  of  it,  to 
call  for  reports  from  this  Vestry  relative  to  the  condition  or  affairs  of  this  cor- 
poriition." 

In  reporting,  however,  to  the  Senate  the  estimated  value  of  her 
property,  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church  presented  its  assessed  value 
as  assessed  hy  sworn  assessors  for  taxation,  and  so  declared  in  their 
report.  The  property  thus  assessed  being  under  lease,  Trinity  Church 
has  only  a  reversionary  interest  in  it. 

"  In  reference  to  the  inquiry  as  to  the  estimated  value  of  each  lot  and  parcel 
of  land,  owned  by  this  corporation  in  the  city  of  New  York,  the  Vestry  annex 
hereto  a  schedule,  showing  as  to  each  lot  its  situation ;  its  value  with  the 


ITS  VAiUE  AOT)  MODE  OF  VALTTAXION. 


13 


buildings  thereon  (the  property  of  the  tenants)  as  assessed  in  1855,  6y  the  oncers 
of  the  city  for  the  purpose  of  taxation,  (except  such  as  are  exempt  from  taxa- 
tion, which"  are  pavtieularly  noted ;)  the  estimated  portion  of  such  value  for  the 
buildings;  the  net  value  of  the  lot  deducting  the  buildings,  irrespective  of  the 
leases;  the  annual  ground  rent  reserved  to  the  Church;  the  expiration  of  the 
term,  and  the  present  value  of  the  reversion  and  of  the  ground  rents  to  the 
Church.  From  this  schedule  it  v.-ill  appear,  that  the  total  value  of  the  property 
embraced  therein,  irrespective  of  the  leases  and  of  the  buildings,  is  S2, 668,7 10." 

On  the  value  of  the  property  and  the  niode  of  valuation,  in  its 
report  to  the  Senate,  the  following  is  the  statement,  under  oath,  of 
Gulian  C.  Verplaack,  Esq.,  one  of  the  Vestry : 

"  I  had  no  hand  in  making  out  the  report  made  to  the  Senate  of  the  value 
of  their  oroperty,  but  I  think  that  no  other  mode  of  estimation  than  that  of 
the  sworn  assessors  could  have  been  made  and  agreed  upon.  This  arises,  in 
my  judgment,  from  the  Chm-ch  interest  being  a  reversionary  property,  falling 
in  at  different  periods,  with  comparatively  a  email  income.  As  to  the  most 
valuable  and  saleable  property  in  the  lower  part  of  the  city,  which  ha."  recently 
risen,  even  since  the  making  of  the  report,  the  high  prices  chieflj'  for  commer- 
cial purposes,  ray  own  experience  and  observation  convince  me,  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  calculate,  with  any  reasonable  ground  of  reliance,  as  to  its  rever- 
sionary value  for  six,  eight  and  ten  years,  and  longer  periods  ahead.  I  speak 
both  from  observation  and  experience  on  this  subject.  I  have  been  a  member 
of  moaied  institutions,  which  lend  on  morts;age,  in  the  city  of  iv'ew  York;  such 
as  the  Life  and  Trust  Company.  I  have  observed  the  great  fluctuations  and 
fall  of  value  in  parts  of  the  city,  such  as  Pearl  street,  Hanover  Square.  I  have 
examined  many  bonds  and  mortgages  of  this  character,  while  inquiring  into  the 
value  of  property.  I  have  myself  had  the  management  and  control  of  property 
in  Stone  street,  Pine  street,  &a.,  which  in  1835-36,  was  of  great  value,  but 
has  now  fallen  one-half,  or  nearly  one-half  its  value  at  that  time,  owing  to  the 
tran.=ition  of  certain  branches  of  commercial  business  from  that  locality  to 
Broadway,  and  the  streets  adjoining  it.  I  could  not,  therefore,  myself,  as  the 
same  occurrence  may  take  place,  estimate  a  high  reversionary  value  ten  or 
fifteen  years  hence,  from  present  prices.  The  Astor  lease,  *''^rniing  a  large  por- 
tion of  "the  property  of  the  Church,  falling  in  in  ten  years,  is  a  mere  reversion- 
ary property,  producing,  at  present,  only  §269  per  annuni.  Such  property, 
when  oifered  in  large  amounts  at  a  time,  would  not,  probably,  command  the 
bids  or  offers  of  any  but  capitalists  expecting  to  purchase  at  a  low  rate,  and 
except  uadervery  favorable  circumstances,  would  hardly  bring  its  reversionary 
value,  calculated  on  the  assessed  value,  and  perhaps  not  so  much.  I  form  that 
judgment  with  the  full  Icnowledge,  that  where  the  property  is  not  encumbered 
with  a  lease,  it  might  sell  for  more  than  the  assessed  value.  For  these  reasons, 
I  think  the  assessed  value,  the  only  one  that  the  Church  could  properly  give,  or  the 
Vestry  have  probably  agreed  upon."* 


*  The  astounding  revulsion  in  Banks,  Stocks,  Rail  Road  Securieties,  City  Lots, 
and  Farms,  now  (in  October,  1S57,)  affecting  the  City  and  State  of  New  York 
and  the  whole  country,  supplies  striking  and  lamentable  evidence  of  the  uncer- 
tainty of  the  value  of  all  city  property,  and  should  silence  the  tongue  of  exag- 
geration in  regard  to  that  of  Trinity  Church,  while  it  must  vindicate  tlie  dec- 
laration of  Mr.  Verplanck  that  the  assessedvalue  is  the  proper  value  for  Trinity 
Church  to  report.  Divine  Providence,  by  a  mere  panic,  has  almost  prostrated 
the  value  of  city  propertj',  sunk  wealth  to  want,  rebuked  pride,  luxury  and 
self-elation,  and  invoked  us  all,  by  a  voice  that  is  felt,  to  trust  not  in  uncertain 
riches,  but  in  the  Living  God.  "  It  is  the  Lord's  doings,  and  is  marvelous  in 
our  eyes." 


14 


TRINITY  CHtTRCH  PEOPEKTY. 


The  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  have  given  and  appropriated  from  the 
year  1750  to  1855  — 

LOTS.  IN  MOXEV. 

To  Churches  in  the  city  of  New  York  122  $493,125 

To  Churches  in  fifty  counties  in  the  State,   24  228,294 

To  the  advancement  of  religion,  public  purposes.  Institutions 
of  learning,  support  of  the  Episcopate,  Church  Societies, 
infirm  clergymen,  widows  of  families  of  deceased  clergy- 
men, since  1748  172  286,111 

"Thus  has  this  corporation  administered  its  estate,  freely  granting  it  for  the 
spread  of  religion  in  all  parts  of  the  State  for  the  support  of  ministers  of  the 
gospel,  and  the  succor  of  their  families,  and  for  the  aid  and  endowment  of 
institutions  of  learning.  It  has,  for  these  purposes,  paid  and  appropriated  in 
money  §1,287, 392  75,  and  given  a  large  number  of  lots  of  land;  by  these 
means  diminishing  iU  property  to  one-third  its  original  extent." 

The  Hon.  Daniel  D.  Baenard  has  thus  declared  his  opinion  under 
his  name : 

"I  venture  to  say  that  no  man  of  common  understanding,  before  wholly 
uninformed  on  the  subject,  could  go  through  the  testimony  in  the  case,  taking 
the  whole  of  it  together,  and  passing  by  the  Reports,  without  coming  to  the 
conclusion,  after  allowing  for  all  errors  of  judgment,  and  feeling,  perhaps,  grave 
doubts  about  the  wisdom  in  all  instances  of  the  measures  and  methods  of 
administration,  and  of  charitable  distiibution,  which  had  been  adopted,  that 
it  is  doubtful  if  another  religious  foundation,  as  amply  endowed  as  this,  could 
be  found  in  the  world,  where  for  a  full  century  and  a  half  together,  and  coming 
down  to  the  present  hour,  there  had  been  manifested  so  much  of  absolute 
purity,  of  entire  disinterestedness,  of  unswerving  integrity,  of  generous  and 
humane  consideration,  and  of  uniform  action,  performed  under  a  high  and  noble 
sense  of  moral  and  religious  obligation,  as  have  characterized  the  Vestry  of 
Trinity  Church  in  the  conduct  of  the  affairs  of  that  corporation." 

Against  the  charge  that  the  Vestry,  in  granting  aid  to  Churches, 

have  acted  under  the  influence  of  party  feeling,  the  Hon.  John  A.  Dix, 

one  of  the  Vestry,  thus  testifies  : 

"I  feel  it  to  be  my  solemn  duty  to  repel  this  imputation,  by  stating  my  own 
experience.  I  have  been  more  than  seven  years  a  member  of  the  Vestry,  and 
have  been  on  terms  of  the  most  unreserved  and  confidential  communication 
with  ray  associates.  I  have  discussed  with  them  the  propriety  of  granting  and 
declining  applications  for  aid,  not  only  at  nearly  all  the  meetings  of  the  Vestry, 
but  in  many  cases  in  private  interviews ;  and  no  reference  has  ever  been  made 
by  me  or  by  any  one  of  them,  at  any  meeting,  ofiicial  or  private,  to  the  part}' 
views  of  any  of  the  Rectors,  or  religious  societies  presenting  such  applications. 
The  party  divisions,  which  have  existed  for  several  years  in  the  Episcopal 
Church,  and  which  have  not  only  impaired  its  capacity  for  doing  good,  hut 
dishonored  those  on  both  aides  who  have  been  active  in  keeping  them  alive, 
have  never  been  a  subject  of  discussion  at  any  meeting  of  the  Vestry  which  I 
have  attended ;  nor  have  they  been  alluded  to  in  connection  with  applications 
for  aid.  I  have  taken  a  deep  interest  in  several  applications  myself,  and  have, 
perhaps,  had  some  influence  in  securing  grants  of  money  to  the  applicants, 
and  in  no  instance  have  I  inquired  what  were  the  particular  views  of  tlie  Rector 
of  the  Parish  to  which  they  belonged.  I  do  not  even  know  to  this  day  whether 
they  are  High  Church  or  Low  Church.  The  only  inquiries  ever  ma<5e  were  in 
regard  to  tlieir  pecuniary  and  social  condition  and  their  need  of  assistance; 
and  these  considerations,  together  with  the  ability  of  Trinity  Church  at  the 


MORTGAGES  ON  CHTIBCHES. 


15 


time  to  make  the  grants  asked  for,  and  the  probability  that  the  grants  would 
be  efifective  for  the  objects  in  view,  have  been  the  only  ones  which  have  guided 
me  in  my  votes.  I  believe  the  other  members  of  the  Vestry  have  been  equally 
free  from  the  influence  of  party  motives.  My  belief  is  founded  upon  my 
knowledge  of  them  as  enlightened,  conscientious  and  liberal  men,  and  upon 
all  they  have  said  and  done  in  my  presence  through  a  familiar  association  of 
seven  years.  I  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  been  deceived  in  regard  to  their 
principles  of  action,  but  upon  the  hypothesis  of  a  depth  of  dissimulation  on 
their  part,  and  an  obtuseness  of  perception  on  my  own,  too  gross  for  the  largest 
credulity." 

The  charge  that  Trinity  Church  takes  mortgages  on  the  Churches 
to  which  her  aid  is  extended,  was  met  by  testimony — 

That  she  took  such  mortgages  to  prevent  the  property  from  being 
alienated  from  the  Church. 

That  she  never  foreclosed  any  mortgage  thus  taken. 

That  she  never  required  interest  to  be  paid  on  them. 

That  she  never  received  any  thing  on  their  account,  except  when 
the  property  was  sold  by  others,  and  she  received  back  her  advances 
to  be  applied  to  other  feeble  Churches. 

William  Moore,  Esq.,  one  of  the  Vestry,  testified  thus  to  the 
mortgages : 

"  They  were  taken  with  a  view  to  prevent  that  property  being  lost  to  the 
Church  at  large.  In  case  of  a  foreclosure  of  a  previous  mortgage,  or  some 
embarrassment  to  the  Church,  that  this  money  advanced  by  Trinitv  should 
return  to  that  Church  to  be  distributed  again,  or  returned  to  the  same"  Church. 
I  never  knew  of  any  case  of  a  foreclosure  of  a  mortgage  while  I  was  in  the 
Vestry,  nor  do  I  befieve  there  ever  was  one." 

Mr.  Samlt;l  F.  Skidmore,  one  of  the  Vestry,  testified  thus  in  answer 
to  the  question,  what  is  the  object  in  taking  mortgages  when  a  grant 
is  made  ? 

"  These  Church  mortgages  are  taken  and  held  by  Trinity  Church,  not  for  their 
own  private  benefit,  but  (and  in  good  faith)  for  the  benefit  of  other  Churches. 
They  never  have  demanded,  nor  do  they  expect  to  demand,  either  the  principal 
or  interest  of  those  loans,  except  in  occasional  isolated  cases;  such  for  instance 
as  the  foreclosure  of  a  prior  mortgage,  or  to  save  the  Church  properties  from' 
being  disposed  of  impropei-ly,  or  for  other  than  Church  objects  and  purposes. 
The  parties  obtaining  these  loans,  (which  they  look  upon  virtu.illy  as  gifts,)  do 
not  object  to  giving  such  mortgages  on  their  Churches,  but  generallv  view  the 
requirement  of  them  as  a  wise  and  conservative  measure  for  perpetuating  the 
original  object  and  intention  of  the  grant.  The  character  of  these  mort^awes 
is  so  well  and  so  generally  understood,  that  an  attempt  to  foreclose  any  one^of 
them,  on  the  part  of  Trinity  Church,  for  the  purpose  of  restoring  tiie  amount 
again  to  their  own  coffers,  would  be  regarded  as  little  short  of  absolute  dis- 
honesty. If  the  same  objects  aimed  at  in  these  loans,  could  be  equally  well 
secured  in  some  other  way,  I  confidently  believe  that  no  desire  on  the  part  of 
Trinity  Church  to  keep  alive  a  sense  of  obligation  to  her  on  the  part  of  the 
recipients  of  her  favors  wovild,  for  one  moment,  stand  in  the  way  of  the 
change.    For  the  foregoing  reasons,  I  think  that  the  principal  and  interest  of 


16 


TRINITY  CHURCH  PKOPEETT. 


those  mortgages,  (amounting  to  $571,952,)  ought  not  to  be  considered  as  part 
of  the  wealth  of  Trinity  Church,  nor  be  made  to  show  a  seeming  intention,  on 
her  part,  to  withhold  from  the  honorable  the  Senate,  essential  and  important 
facts  respecting  her  property. 

"  Q.  Has  the  Church  ever  foreclosed  any  of  these  mortgages  ?  A.  None  to 
my  knowledge." 

In  answer  to  the  same  question,  Bishop  De  Lancey  testified  in  regard 
to  his  Diocese, — 

"  Q.  Has  Trinity  Church  ever  foreclosed  any  of  the  mortgages  on  Churches, 
or  ever  required  the  annual  interest  on  them  to  be  paid  to  her  ?  A.  I  have 
never  heard  or  known  of  any  su3h  case  in  Western  New  York  or  elsewhere. 
I  do  not  usually  consecrate  a  new  church  edifice,  until  the  Vestry  certify  that 
its  debts  are  paid  or  reasonably  provided  for.  A  mortgage  to  Trinity  Church, 
on  which  neither  principal  nor  interest  are  damanded,  I  do  not  consider  an 
obstacle  to  the  consecration  of  a  new  Church,  but  us  additional  secui'ity  against 
its  alienation  from  its  holy  objects. 

"Q.  Has  any  Church  in  your  diocese,  to  which  Trinity  has  made  a  grant  of 
money  without  taking  a  mortgage  on  Church  edifice,  ever  been  lost  to  the  con- 
gregation or  diocese  ?  A.  Yes  ;  a  Church  on  which  Trinity  Churcli  took  no 
mortgage  for  a  grant  of  |500,  was  sold  for  debt,  and  the  congregation  dis- 
persed. A  mortgage  to  Trinity  Church  would  have  saved  it,  or  at  least  saved 
the  $500  for  the  use  of  the  diocese  elsewhere." 

The  views  of  Bishop  H.  Potter,  of  New  York,  on  the  subject  of 

the  mortgages  taken  by  Trinity  Church,  for  her  appropriations  to 

assist  tlie  Churches,  were  thus  presented  : 

"  Q.  Wliat  is  your  opinion  of  the  effect  of  the  course  of  Trinity  Church,  in 
giving  her  aid  to  CLiiirches  in  the  form  of  loans  upon  mortgages,  rather  than  in 
the  form  of  absolute  grants  ?  A.  Those  loans  were  absolute  grants  in  reality  ; 
nobody  ever  supposed  that  the  interest  or  the  principal  would  be  called  for  by 
Trinity  Church.  They  never  have  Ijeen,  in  a  single  instance,  although  the 
cases  have  been  very  numerous,  in  which  land  mortgages  have  been  given. 
When  I  consecrate  a  Church,  I  always  wish  to  know  whether  there  be  any 
debt.  I  never  regard  a  mortgage  given  to  Ti-inity  Church,  in  the  light  of  a 
debt.  I  have  ne\  er  perceived,  X  do  not  believe,  that  such  mortgages,  in  any 
way  affect  the  independence  of  ministers  or  laymen.  It  is  very  common,  in- 
deed, to  see  the  minister  and  laymen  of  a  Church,  subject  to  a  mortgage,  voting 
against  measures  favored  by  Trinity  Church.  In  convention,  I  doubt  whether 
any  one  remembers  or  reflects  whether  mortgages  e.xist  in  particular  quarters, 
or  not.  The  effect  of  these  mortgages  has,  I  have  no  doubt,  been  inipoi  tant  in 
preventing  the  property  of  Churches  from  being  sold  and  alienated  from  their 
sacred  use.  And  this,  I  have  always  understood,  was  the  sole  object  of  Trinity 
Church  in  requiring  them." 

The  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  have  always  maintained,  that  they 
hokl  the  property  grauted  by  Queen  Aime,  not  as  a  trust  estate,  but  by 
a  full,  independent,  bona  fide,  luitrammelled  ownership,  and  that  they 
are  not  obliged  by  any  trust  to  confine  the  application  of  it  exclusively 
to  her  own  Parish,  or  to  the  city  of  New  York,  but  may  extend  it  to 
the  country  Churches  and  objects. 

There  are  uo  terms  impljdng  trusteeship  in  the  lease  of  the  Queen's 


NUMBER  AND  CHAUACTEE  OF  OOEPOEATOES.  17 


Farm,  made  by  Lord  Combury,  November  23,  1705,  in  the  name  and 
as  the  act  and  deed  of  Queen  Anne,  but  the  lands  "  were  granted 
and  confirmed  to  said  corporation,  to  the  use  of  the  Rector  and  in- 
habitants of  the  said  city  of  New  York,  in  common  with  the  Church 
of  England,  as  by  law  established,  and  their  successors  forever,  to  be 
holden  in  free  and  common  socage,  and  paying  the  yearly  rent  of  three 
shillings."    The  power  of  the  Provincial  Governor  to  make  loners  of 
the  Crown  Lands  was  unlimited,  in  1705,  when  the  lease  in  q 
was  made.    This  lease,  therefore,  seems  to  have  been  valid  and  o: 
in  its  inception,  and  to  have  been  so  regarded  during  the  conlii. 
of  the  Provincial  Government.    And  not  only  by  the  Provincial  Gov- 
ernment, but  by  the  Government  of  this  State,  in  1786,  when  the  reut 
reserved  was  finally  commuted  and  satisfied. 

If  Trinity  Church  holds  this  property  in  trust,  she  must  abide  by 
the'  terms  and  limitations  of  the  trust.  But  if  she  holds  it  as  her  own, 
under  the  Charter,  she  may  use  it  as  her  own,  under  the  terms  of  her 
Charter,  and  in  this  view  she  has  acted  with  the  property  from  the. 
beginning,  taking  care  of  her  own  Parish,  and  aiding  other  Churches 
and  objects,  both  in  the  city  and  country. 

On  the  subject  of  the  number  of  the  corporators  of  Trinity  Church, 
the  Hon.  D.  D.  Barnard  states  his  views  in  these  terms : 

"  Another  point  made  in  the  reports  relates  to  the  comparatively  small,  and 
as  the  committee  seem  to  think,  gradually  diminishing  number  and  character 
of  the  corporators  of  Trinity  Church.  This  is  specially  referred  to  in  the  second 
Report,  and  urged  as  a  reason  for  increasing  the  number  of  corporators,  and  of 
course,  by  inference,  as  a  reason  why  the  Senate  should  declare  that  the  mem- 
bers of  other  Parishes  in  New  York,  legal  corporators  or  not,  shall  be  corpora- 
tors of  the  Parish  of  Trinity.  I  do  not  think,  in  my  life,  I  ever  heard  a  more 
daring  proposition.  When  the  corporators  of  Trinity  Church,  fail,  it  will  be 
time  enough  for  the  State,  but  not  through  the  Legislature,  to  look  after  the 
estate  of  that  corporation  ;  and  when  the  question,  and  the  only  question  sub- 
mitted by  the  committee  itseK,  in  the  bill  they  have  brought  in,  on  the  disputed 
point  under  consideration  is,  whether  certain  persons  are  or  are  not  legal  cor 
porators  of  Trinity  Church,  to  urge  the  Senate  to  declare  them  to  be  so — to 
bring  in,  in  truth,  an  army  and  mob  of  corporators  to  seize  upon  Tiinity  Church 
and  her  possessions — not  on  the  ground  that  such  is  their  legal  right,  but  upon 
the  consideration  that  it  would  be  well,  for  economical  and  prudential  reasons, 
to  increase  the  number  of  corporators,  sui-passes  anything  I  have  yet  heard 
of,  in  any  official  quarter  in  this  country,  in  the  spirit  of  bold  agrarianism. 

"  Ti'inity  Church  is  a  religious  corporation.  She  possesses  a  large  estate 
devoted  to  pious  uses.  She  is  a  Parish  in  whicli  the  work  of  the  Christian 
ministry  is  carried  on  as  in  other  Parishes,  only  on  a  much  larger  scale  than  in 
any  other  Parish  in  this  country.  She  has  four  Church  edifices  instead  of  one, 
in  which  religious  services  are  performed  by  nine  ministers.  The  legal  cus- 
tody, care  and  management  of  all  her  property,  and  all  her  affairs,  both  tem- 
poral and  spiritual,  rest  with  certain  legally  constituted  and  elected  officers  ; 
these  are  the  Rector,  two  "Wardens  and  twenty  Vestrymen.    The  Wardens  and 


18 


TRINITY  OHXIKOH  PEOPEKTY. 


Vestrymen  are  elected  annually ;  tbey  call  and  induct  the  Rector,  and  choose 
the  assistant  ministers.  Up  to  the  present  time,  the  Parishioners  of  Ti-inity 
Church  have  elected  the  Wardens  and  Vestrymen,  just  as  the  Wardens  and 
Vestrymen  of  every  other  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  are  elected  by  its  own 
Parishioners.  The  Parishioners  of  Trinity  Church  entitled  to  vote,  are  a  little 
over  three  hundred.  There  are  fifty  other  legally  constituted  Parishes  in  New 
York,  and  the  Parishioners  of  all  these  entitled  to  vote  for  Parish  Officers, 
taken  together,  are  probably  not  less  than  eight  thousand.  If  these,  or  any 
number  at  all  like  it,  are  to  be  brought  in  to  vote  for  the  Parish  Oflicers  of 
Trinity  Church,  the  consequence  is  apparent.  The  control  and  government  of 
the  Parish  of  Trinity  will  be  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  tlie  Parishioners  of 
Trinity  ;  the  Parishioners  of  other  Churches  will  elect  her  oflieers  ;  the  govern- 
ment of  Trinity  Church,  the  property,  the  sacred  edifices  and  the  ministers  of 
Trinity  Church,  will  all  be  in  the  hands  and  under  the  control  of  officers  wliose 
constituency  will  be,  not  the  Parishioners  of  Ti'inity,  but  the  Parishioners  of 
other  Churches.  The  outside  constituency  thiis  proposed  to  be  brought  in,  is  a 
constituency  antagonist  to  that  of  Ti'inity  Church.  It  is  so  designed.  Tlie 
object  is  to  take  possession  and  control  of  the  property  of  Trinity  Chui'ch,  and 
this  is  to  be  done  by  taking  possession  of  the  government  of  the  corporation, 
involving  of  necessity  the  control,  direction  and  management  of  all  lier  affairs, 
internal  and  external,  religious  and  charitable,  spiritual  and  temporal." 

The  policy  of  endowing  Churches  with  land,  as  prevalent  before 

1814,  is  contrasted  with  the  policy  of  making  gifts  in  money,  pursued 

since  that  time,  by  Mr.  G.  M.  Ogden,  one  of  the  Vestry,  in  these  terms  : 

"  Prior  to  1814,  there  were  grants  of  318  lots,  by  means  of  which  wei-e  en- 
dowed three  charitable  and  educational  institutions — Columbia  College,  Trinity 
School,  and  the  Society  for  promoting  religion  and  learning ;  three  amply  en- 
dowed Churches — St.  Mark's,  Grace,  and  St.  George's ;  and  twelve  other 
Churches  to  which  were  given  lots  of  land  in  much  smaller  proportion  than  to 
the  three  Churches  last  named, — thus  making  eighteen  Churches  and  institu- 
tions benefited  by  the  gift  of  318  lots. 

"  One  thousand  and  fifty-nine  lots  have  been  sold  by  Trinity  Church,  and  out 
of  the  proceeds  derived  from  the  sale,  she  has  given  away,  for  the  benefit  of 
other  Churches  and  institutions,  11,287,392.75.  Suppose  these  lots  had  been 
given  for  endowments — if  these  were  as  liberal  as  those  made  before  1814,  the 
1059  lots  would  have  served  to  endow,  at  the  most,  forty-four  Churches  and 
institutions,  and  indeed  it  may  be  doubted,  whether  they  would  have  sufficed 
for  that  purpose ;  for  the  three  Churches  above  mentioned  to  have  been  amply 
endowed,  were  not  only  given  land,  but  were  built  by  Trinity  Church,  and 
the  twelve  other  Churches  were  only  assisted,  by  the  lots  granted,  to  a  vei'y 
limited  extent.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  lots  to  the  value  of  §50,000,  a  small 
allowance  for  an  endowment,  had  been  given  to  so  many  Churches  as  the  last 
mentioned  sum  would  have  sufficed  for  the  endowment  of,  on  Mr.  Bradish's 
principle,  not  more  than  twenty-five  Churches  could  have  been  made  indepen- 
dent through  these  1059  lots. 

"  But  what  has  Trinity  Church  accomplished  by  the  sale  of  these  lots,  and 
by  granting  to  other  Churches  and  institutions  the  moneys  received  from  the 
sale  ?  By  this  policy,  deemed  so  unwise,  St.  George's,  Grace  and  St.  Mark's 
Churches  have  been  built ;  more  than  two  hundred  other  Churches  have  been 
aided,  upwards  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  of  them  in  the  country ;  Hobart  Free 
College,  at  Geneva,  has  received  an  endowment  of  $3,000  a  year,  on  tlie  con- 
dition that  it  shall  be  free  to  all ;  the  Theological  Seminary  and  Missionary 
Boards  have  been  assisted  ;  an  Episcopal  residence  has  been  purcliased  ;  infirm 
clergymen  and  families  of  deceased  clergymen  have  received  annuities  and 
other  assistance :  and  these  are  only  some  of  the  results  of  the  change  of  policy 
which  has  been  complained  of. 


GOOD  WOEK  m  WHICH  TRTNITY  CHUECH  IS  ENGAGED.  19 


"  The  object  of  this  change  of  policy  is  manifest  It  was  to  distribute  the 
fnnd,  to  be  derived  from  the  gradual  disposition  of  the  real  estate,  amongst 
many  Churches  and  institutions,  doing  for  each  only  what  it  could  not  do  for 
itself,  and  looking  to  the  probable  beneficial  results  in  each  case,  rather  than 
to  make  a  few  favorites  rich  and  independent ;  to  encourage  individual  effort 
by  timely  and  judicious  aid  in  every  quarter,  in  city  and  country.  If  the 
other  policy  had  been  followed,  the  property  would  have  been  distributed  long 
ago,  without  provision  for  the  future,  and  Churches  coming  into  existence 
afterwards  could  have  had  no  help." 

The  great  and  good  work  in  wWch  Trinity  Church  is  now  earnestly 
engaged,  is  thus  developed  by  the  Hon.  John  A.  Dix,  in  whose  sug- 
gestions to  the  Vestry,  it  is  understood  to  have  originated : 

"  It  is  well  known  that  the  greater  part  of  the  city  below  Chambers  street, 
is  devoted  to  purposes  of  business,  and  that  private  dweUings  have  given  place 
to  stores  and  warehouses.  The  wealthy  portion  of  the  population  has  gone 
to  the  upper  districts,  and  most  of  the  Churches  of  all  denominations  have  fol- 
lowed them  The  Xorth  Dutch,  which  is  stUl  engaged  in  useful  spiritual  labors 
in  the  neighborhood  of  St.  Paiil's,  the  Methodist  Church  in  John  street,  unhap- 
pily rent  by  internal  strife,  and  St  Peter's,  a  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Barclay 
street,  stOl  maintain  their  ground.  With  these  exceptions.  Trinity  Church,  St 
Paul's,  and  the  Church  in  Beekman  street,  formerly  St.  George's,  pui-chased  and 
now  entirely  supported  by  Trinity,  stand  alone  in  this  great  deserted  field  of 
labor.  The  same  process  is  going  on  above  Chambers  street,  and  in  a  few 
years,  there  wiU,  in  all  probability,  be  no  Churches  below  Canal  street,  but 
those  of  Trinity  Parish.  Notwithstanding  this  exodus  of  wealth,  a  vast  popu- 
lation, the  inhabitants,  in  great  part,  of  nlleys,  garrets,  and  cellars,  estimated 
to  exceed  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  souls,  occupy  the  field  it  has 
abandoned  ;  and  if  Trinity  Church  had  followed  the  same  instincts,  which  have 
drawn  off  the  other  religious  societies  of  the  city  to  its  more  attractive  districts 
— if  she  also  had  abandoned  to  their  fate  the  poor  and  necessitous,  whom  wealth 
and  fashion  have  bequeathed  to  her,  the  lower  part  of  the  city  would  have 
presented  an  example  of  religious  destitution,  unparalleled  in  the  history  of 
Christian  civilization. 

"  The  design  of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  in  this  movement  was  to  rescue 
the  lower  pai-t  of  the  city — that  portion  which  has  not  only  an  immense  body 
of  resident  poor,  but  which  receives  into  its  bosom  the  greater  part  of  the  des- 
titute who  seek  a  refuge  here  from  hardship  in  other  countries — to  rescue  this 
combined  mass  of  permanent  and  temporary  indigence  from  the  utter  spiritual 
abandonment  with  which  it  was  threatened  by  the  removal  of  those,  to  whose 
wealth  and  liberality  it  had  been  accustomed  to  look  for  sympathy  and  pecun- 
iary aid,  to  more  congenial  districts.  The  plan  comprehended  not  only  the 
spiritual  instruction  of  the  adult  inhabitants  of  this  deserted  district — once  the 
seat  of  nearly  all  the  wealth  of  the  city — but  the  education  of  their  children, 
and,  to  the  extent  of  the  means  of  the  corporation,  a  ministration  to  their  tem- 
poral wants.  Trinity  Chiirch,  with  its  endowments,  fortunately  growing  more 
valuable  with  the  progress  of  the  city,  was  to  stand  in  the  place  of  the  indi- 
vidual opulence,  which  has  fled  from  a  district  where  its  tastes  could  no  longer 
find  suitable  fields  for  indulgence,  and  established  itself  in  others,  where  it  has 
rivalled  Genoa  in  its  streets  of  palaces,  and  where  in  all  its  appointments  and 
manifestations  of  in-door  and  out-door  Ufe,  there  is  a  concentration  of  refine- 
ment, luxury  and  splendor  unequalled,  excepting  by  a  few  of  the  great  capitals 
of  Europe. 

"It  seemed  to  me  to  have  been  among  the  designs  of  Providence,  that  Trinity 
Church  should  have  been  planted  in  tliis  great  district,  ready,  with  her  ample 
endowments,  to  make  provision,  when  the  emergency  should  arrive,  for  those 
whom  individual  wealth  has  left  upon  her  own  hands.    I  hold  this  to  be  the 

«> 


20 


TEIHITY  CHXTRCH  PROPERTY. 


great  mission  of  Trinity  Church ;  and  I  have  pressed  on  the  Vestry,  on  all 
proper  occasions,  the  duty  of  preparing  for  it,  and  of  commencing  the  work 
with  the  utmost  diligence.  Though  the  plan  has  not  been  formally  adopted,  it 
has  been  practically  acted  on ;  and  it  is  due  to  my  associates  in  the  Vestry  to 
say,  that  they  have  responded  to  all  appeals  in  behalf  of  the  destitute  districts 
below  Canal  street,  by  as  liberal  an  expenditure  as  the  income  of  the  corpo- 
ration, crippled  by  a  heavy  debt  and  burdend  by  large  annual  contributions  to 
other  Cliurehes,  has  admitted.  The  Clerical  force  of  the  Parish  has  been  nearly 
doubled ;  the  Sunday  Schools  have  been  greatly  enlarged ;  Parish  Schools  for 
the  gratuitous  education  of  children  have  been  established;  by  far  the  greater 
part  of  the  pews  in  Trinity  Church,  one  hundred  and  four  out  of  one  hundred 
and  forty-four  in  St.  Paul's,  and  a  large  number  in  St.  John's,  are  free ;  efforts 
have  been  put  forth  to  bring  into  the  Church  those  who  have  not  been  accustomed 
to  attend  any  religious  worship ;  Trinity  Church  is  opened  twice  a  day  through- 
out the  year  for  divine  service ;  a  mission  office  has  been  established  to  receive 
applications  for  aid;  lay  visitors  are  employed  to  seek  out  want  and  relieve  it; 
missionary  agencies  have  been  instituted  in  connection  with  the  Commissioners 
of  Emigration  ;  the  whole  lower  part  of  the  city  has  been  virtually  made  a  field 
of  missionary  labor;  and  a  degree  of  energy  has  been  infused  into  the  minis- 
trations of  the  Church,  temporal  and  spiritual,  which  compensates  in  a  great 
degree  for  the  lost  support  of  the  religious  societies  removed  to  other  districts. 
In  the  midst  of  all  this  earnest  effort,  with  five  of  her  Clergy  residing  within  this 
neglected  field  of  labor,  conversant  with  little  else  than  its  destitution,  and  devo- 
ting themselves  to  the  relief  of  its  wants,  Trinity  Church  finds  herself  assailed 
as  faithless  to  her  trust  by  those,  for  the  most  jjart,  whose  lives  are  passed 
amid  the  social  amenities  of  the  upper  districts  and  in  an  atmosphere  redolent 
with  indulgence  and  luxurious  ease." 

Of  the  aid  extended  by  Trinity  Church  to  feeble  Churches  and  Ed- 
ucational objects  in  Western  New  York,  Bishop  De  Lancet  testified 
as  follows  : 

"  Q.  Has  Trinity  Church,  New- York,  aided  any  of  the  chiu'ches  in  your 
diocese  ?  A.  Yes,  I  learn  from  the  publications  of  the  rector  of  Trinity  Church 
that  she  has  aided  altogether,  since  1807,  in  Western  New  York,  about  77 
churches,  being  6  before  the  year  1814,  and  71  churches  since  that  year.  Some 
were  aided  twice.  Of  those  71  aided  since  1814,  about  twenty  have  been  aided 
since  I  became  bishop." 

"  Q.  Has  Trinity  Church  made  any  grants  for  educational  purposes  in  your 
diocese  ?  A.  Yes,  a  most  important  and  liberal  one  to  the  value  of  $50,000,  to 
Geneva  college  in  1851.  The  grant  was  made  when  Geneva  college  was  in  a 
disastrous  and  critical  condition,  occasioned  by  the  State  withdrawing  unex 
pectedly,  under  the  two  year  provision  of  the  new  constitution  of  1846,  in 
regard  "to  appropriations,  her  annual  gi'ant  of  ^6,000  to  the  college,  leaving 
nearly  $3,000  unpaid,  (and  still  unpaid)*  a  debt  upon  the  college  trustees,  who 
were  without  means  to  pay  the  pi'ofessors,  all  of  whom  but  the  president 
sought  other  posts,  and  the  students  dinjinished  in  number  from  eighty  (the 
highest  n\imber  under  the  State  grant)  to  thirty-seven.  When  the  prosjiect  of  pri- 
vate endowment  to  maintain  new  professors  was  dim  and  gloomy,  and  the  very 
continuance  of  the  college,  dnbions,  in  this  emergency  Trinity  Church  was 
asked  to  endow  the  college,  wliicli  she  did  in  1S51,  by  a  grant  of  §50,000,  tlie 
it  f  i  i^st  at  six  per  cent,  to  be  paid  annually  until  the  pi-incipal  is  j)aid  on  the 
.'.ion  of  the  Aitor  lease,  as  I  imderstand,  on  the  condition  tliat  the  col- 
made  in  its  literary  department  a  free  college  forever,  to  all  students 
ue  to  it,  and  that  it  take  the  name  of  Hobart  Free  College,  by  act  of  the 


^uo  Legislature  Las  since  voted  this  sum  to  the  college. 


FIEST  WAKDENS  AND  VESTETMEN. 


21 


Legislature.  Since  which  time  the  faculty  have  been  sustained,  and  the  stu- 
dents have  increased  from  thirty-seven  to  ninety-six,  a  larger  number  than  it 
ever  had  under  the  State  grant.  And  $22,000  additional  endowment,  viz :  a 
professorship  of  §15,000,  a  fellowship  of  §5,000,  and  two  scholarships  of  §1,000 
each,  and  several  benefactions  have  been  received  from  private  sources,  not  one  of 
which  endowments,  I  am  convinced,  would  have  been  made  without  this  grant 
from  Trinity  Church. 

The  Charter  of  Trinity  Church  was  granted  in  1693,  but  owing  to 
political  and  sectarian  opposition,  it  was  not  carried  into  effect  until 
1697,  when  it  went  into  operation,  and  the  following  persons  constituted 
the  first  Wardens  and  Vestrynaen  : 

Wardens. — William  Wenham,  Col.  Robert  Lurting. 

Vestrymen. — Col.  Caleb  Heathcote,  William  Merret,  John  Tudor, 
James  Emott,  William  Morris,  Thomas  Clarke,  Ebenezer  Wilson,  Samuel 
Burt,  James  Evets,  Nathaniel  Marston,  Michael  Howden,  John  Croote 
William  Sharpas,  Lawrence  Read,  Darid  Jamison,  William  Huddleston, 
Gabriel  Ludlow,  Thomas  Burroughs,  William  Janeway,  John  Merret. 

The  list  of  names  of  those  who  have  since  served  the  Church  in  the 
office  of  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  comprises  sis  Mayors,  seven  Record- 
ers, nine  Aldermen  of  the  city  ;  three  Chief  Justices  of  the  State,  five 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  three  Secretaries  of  State,  three  Attor- 
ney Generals,  six  Members  of  Congress,  two  Governors  of  the  State, 
several  distinguished  officers  of  the  Army,  sundry  eminent  Lawyers, 
Physicians  and  Merchants,  and  many  prominent  men  in  other  lines  of 
life. 

The  aflfairs  of  Trinity  Church  have  been  in  the  hands  of  such  gen- 
tlemen as  these  for  a  period  of  one  hundred  and  sixty  years,  amid 
every  kind  of  fluctuation — political,  civil  and  religious — and  they,  and 
their  descendants,  may  safely  challenge  the  City,  the  State,  and  the 
whole  land,  and  the  entire  body  of  the  Church  in  this  country,  to  pre- 
sent to  our  view  a  wiser,  safer,  more  judicious,  more  useful,  and  more 
unsullied  management  of  a  religious  corporation  of  similar  magnitude 
and  relations. 

The  Clergy  of  Trinity  Church  have  not  been  pampered  with  extrav- 
agant salaries. 

The  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  have  not  enriched  themselves  by  the 
management  of  her  property. 

There  has  been  no  unrighteous  speculations  in  the  use  of  her  means. 


22 


TEEJITY  CHURCH  PKOPEBTY. 


There  has  been  no  application  of  her  property  to  objects  alien  to  her 
Charter  or  her  character. 

No  political  intrigues  or  scliemings,  whether  in  the  State  or  Nation, 
have  ever  been  essayed  by  her  means. 

No  Court  of  law  and  no  Legislature  has  ever  sanctioned  any  of  the 
alleged  claims  to  her  property  or  her  franchises  when  they  were 
brought  to  the  calm,  cold  test  of  law,  truth  and  fact. 

Whatever  good  others  claim  they  would  have  done  with  her 
property,  she  can  look  upon  the  magnificent  Churches,  with  which  her 
wealth  has  adorned  the  city  ;  the  large  congregations  sustained  by  pro- 
perty whose  origin  came  from  her  hands  ;  the  two  Colleges  endowed 
by  her  munificence ;  the  youth  she  has  aided  in  their  education  for 
the  Ministry  ;  the  many  Churches  throughout  the  State  that  would 
not  have  existed  without  her  timely  gifts ;  the  fifty  Churches  in 
the  city  more  or  less  aided  by  her,  and  the  two  Dioceses,  adorned  by 
two  hundred  Churches,  who  have,  untrammelled,  tasted  of  her  munifi- 
cence ;  and  she  may,  in  self-defense,  and  without  boasting,  proclaim  : 

These  are  witnesses  that,  not  for  myself,  but  in  the  name  of  God,  for 
his  Church,  and  for  the  moral,  spiritual  and  eternal  good  of  man,  I  have 
endeavored,  honestly,  faithfully  and  usefully,  to  employ  the  means  com- 
mitted to  my  charge. 

I  am,  myself,  under  no  personal  obligations  to  the  Rector,  Wardens 
and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  for  honor,  ofiice  or  emolument.  I 
once  served,  when  a  Deacon,  for  three  months,  as  a  temporary  assist- 
ant in  the  Parish.  My  own  oflacial  applications,  as  Bishop,  for  aid  to 
feeble  Parishes,  in  my  Diocese,  have  not  always  met  with  success. 

My  great-grandfather,  Colonel  Caleb  Heathcote,  heads  the  list  of 
the  first  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  in  lG9l.  My  grandfather.  Lieute- 
nant Governor  De  Lancey,  lies  interred  beneath  her  walls.  My  father, 
and  other  relatives,  have  been  the  friends  and  sup2)prters  of  the  corpo- 
ration. I  put  on  record  the  declaration,  that  I  have  seen  and  heard 
nothing  to  destroy  my  confidence  in  the  purity,  integrity,  fidelity  and 
wisdom  of  the  management  of  her  estate,  enlarged  not  by  the  wit  or 
contrivance  of  man,  but  by  the  Providence  of  God,  pre-eminently 
blessing  the  Goverment,  State,  and  city  to  which  she  belongs. 

I  have  made  this  compilation  of  facts  and  views,  that  the  case  of 
Trinity  Church  corporation,  might  be  understood  in  Western  New 


CLOSING  EEMAEKS. 


23 


York  and  elsewhere.  When  this  Church  asks  the  shelter  of  law,  jus- 
tice and  truth  against  aggression,  a  fair  statement  of  her  means,  and  a 
just  and  righteous  judgment  on  her  proceedings,  responsibilities,  gifts 
and  labors,  I  am  constrained  to  say,  in  view  of  her  past  history,  present 
means  and  opening  opportunities  of  usefulness,  that  I  adopt  not  the 
language  of  distrust,  denunciation  or  assault,  but  the  cordial  prayer  of 
the  Psalmist, — "  Peace  be  within  thy  walls,  and  plenteousness  within 
thy  palaces ;  for  my  brethren  and  companions'  sake  I  will  wish  thee  pros- 
perity ;  yea,  because  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  our  God,  I  will  seek  to  do 
thee  good." 

WILLIAM  H.  DE  LANCEY, 

Bishop  of  Western  New  York, 


E      E<  -A.  T  -A.  . 
On  page  6,  seventh  line  fiom  bottom,  for  "  Board"  read  "  Bond." 
On  page  17,  fourth  line  from  top,  for  "Common"  read  "Communion.' 


•y 


G>ASSICS  I 


i£x  IGtbrts 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
"Ever'thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book." 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  OF  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


